IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 363 of 2005(A) ------------------------------ CRA.153/2004 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1821/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- AYSHA, VILANGATTIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. RAJESH B.K., S/O. KARUNAKARA PILLAI, BLAYIL, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. M K PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. R. P. No.363 OF 2005 ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO:3208 OF 2005 IN CRL. R.P. NO.363 OF 2005 DISMISSED. SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE 2.12.2010 // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No: 363 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 1821 of 1999 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate(EO) Court, Ernakulam challenging the conviction and sentence passed against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.35,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- as fine in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 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 Crl. R.P. No: 363 of 2005 :2: reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the 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 Crl. R.P. No: 363 of 2005 :3: given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- 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 15 days 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/ Crl. R.P. No: 363 of 2005 :4: