IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2861 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.119/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA CC.492/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- CHERIAN MATHEW, KUZHINJALIYIL HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: --------------------------------------------------- 1. K.N. SASIDHARAN, KANICHERIL HOUSE, KONNIPPADU P.O., MELAKAVU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R1 SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON 10/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 2861 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 492 of 1999 on the file of J.F.C.M.Court, Idukki. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs. 2. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 119 of 2001 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Thodupuzha was allowed in part and the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was confirmed Crl.R.P.No. 2861 of 2003 2 and the sentence to undergo S.I. for three months is set aside and the fine of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the court below was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month and the fine, if recovered, will be paid to the complainant as compensation. Against that judgment the complainant filed this revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the accued 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 first respondent/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered Crl.R.P.No. 2861 of 2003 3 and rejected the defence set up by the accused 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. 6. 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 circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused/first respondent 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 Crl.R.P.No. 2861 of 2003 4 today and to produce a memo to that effect before the Trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, he 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. 7. This revision petition is disposed of as above. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm