IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1185 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.88/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.CAURT), KOTTAYAM CC.620/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: --------------------- B. PRASANNAKUMARI W/O.MURALIDHARANUNNI PRASANNALAYAM, CHITTADI MUNDAKAYAM BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. V.R.SUBHASHINI W/O.RAGHU, KARAVALLIL KOKKAYAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. P P SUMANGALA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. R. P. No.1185/2003 ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO: 4700/03 IN CRL. R.P. NO.1185/03 DISMISSED. SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE 11.01.2011 // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No: 1185 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January 2011. O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.620 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Kanjirappally challenging the conviction and sentence passed against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.41,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified by reducing simple imprisonment for two months with order to pay a compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the Crl.R.P. No: 1185 of 2003 :2: appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the court below. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the Revision petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. 5. In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the facts and Crl.R.P. No: 1185 of 2003 :3: circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and to produce a memo to that effect before the Trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The amount if any deposited in the trial court by the accused can be given credit to. 6. In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS ( Judge) dl/