IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 755 of 2003() ----------------------------- CRA.32/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.541/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- KUNHAMMED KURIKKAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY KURIKKAL, MANAGER, PARIS LODGE, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121, MANJERI AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, PONNAN HOUSE, PALAKKULAM, P.O.KARUVAMBRAM, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI M R VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. R. P. No.755 OF 2003 ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO:2741 OF 2003 IN CRL. R.P. NO.755 OF 2003 DISMISSED. SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE 19.11.2010 // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No: 755 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 541 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Manjeri challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him 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 convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for one month and a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Crl.R.P. No: 755 of 2003 :2: 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 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, Crl.R.P. No: 755 of 2003 :3: 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 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 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 Crl.R.P. No: 755 of 2003 :4: 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 revision petitioner. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS ( Judge) dl/