IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 89 of 2003() ---------------------------- CRA.425/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.401/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- T.D.SUNNY, S/O.THALOKARAN DEVASSY, CHERAKKOTTUKARA, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VALSAN, S/O. CHIRIKANDATH AYYAPPAN, WEST FORT, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI PUZHEKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No: 89 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the complainant in S.T. No.401 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thrissur for enhancement of sentence passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.15,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate Crl.R.P. No: 89 of 2003 :2: court. Learned counsel for the complainant for enhancement of fine amount. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused 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 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 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. 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: 89 of 2003 :3: circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within three months from 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. 6. In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the accused. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS ( Judge) dl/