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. 3037 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.160/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD CC.68/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. CHOYI M/S. SHEETHAL ENTERPRISES 1ST FLOOR, THAYAL BUILDING FORT ROAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. C.H. HALRAJ, S/O. C.H. BHASKARA RESIDING AT NAGARAKATTA KORAKODE, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A.NO.12314/03 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 3037 OF 2003 DISMISSED 10.12.2010 SD/- M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3037 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 68 of 1998 on the file of the C.J.M. Court, Kasargode challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.32,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of four months and to pay compensation of Rs.37,000/- to the complainant. The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.R.P.No. 3037 of 2003 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner 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. Crl.R.P.No. 3037 of 2003 3 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 circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/- 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 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. Crl.R.P.No. 3037 of 2003 4 6. In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered and by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm