IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3282 of 2007() ------------------------------ CC.2918/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- R.RAMANATHAN, RESIDING AT 22/275, TEMPLE VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678028. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SRI AYYAPPA PAPER COMPANY (P) LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.78,KUMARAPPA MUDALI STREET NUMGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI 600 034 AND PLACE OF BUSINESS AT XL/2269,EKM,MERCH ANT ROAD,COHCIN-31,BY ITS REP.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 3. T.P.K.MOORTY, RESIDING AT 22/222, CHANDRAKALA, TIRUNELAYI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678028. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 3285 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.Nos.3282 & 3285 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The common revision petitioner in these revisions was the common 2nd accused in C.C.Nos.2918 and 2917 of 2003 respectively before the J.F.C.M-I, Kochi. Both the cases were prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cheque amount involved in C.C.No.2918 of 2003 was Rs.15,474/- and cheque amounts involved in C.C.No.2917 of 2003 was totalling to Rs,7,019/-. In both the cases, the learned Magistrate consequent on the revision petitioner pleading guilty convicted him and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month and 15 days respectively and also directed him to pay the cheque amounts as compensation under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. with a default sentence of two months and one month respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, it was without considering the financial background of the revision petitioner that the learned Magistrate imposed the orders for compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner would contend that he is a penniless Crl.R.P.No.3282 & 3285 of 2007 2 person, who after getting wrecked in the business has been reduced to impecunious conditions of such magnitude that he has been driven to the necessity of taking up the job of poojary in a temple. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the court below should have considered the financial capacity of the petitioner before ordering him to pay the compensation. He relies on the decision in Dilip Dahanukar Vs.Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd and another ( 2007 AIR (SCW) 2425) and other decisions. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by the learned Magistrate while imposing the direction to pay compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the judgments impugned in these revisions, so far as they relate to the direction to pay compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C and the consequential default sentence, shall stand set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for passing fresh orders, with regard to the question as to whether the revision petitioner should be directed to pay compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and if so, what amount. The parties shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 28.7.08. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 1 st day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj