IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1622 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.585/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.3/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER --------------------- 1. MANAGING PARTNER GOOD LUCK CORPORATION T.C.M. BUILDINGS TOWN HALL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. MANAGER, GOOD LUCK CORPORATION T.C.M. BUILDINGS TOWN HALL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEEPAK V DAMODHAR VARADIYATTIL HOUSE, CHITHIRA 15 329, KANIAMPAL, KUNNAMKULAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1 SMT.SANIKA.V.S. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI PUZHEKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. R. P. No.1622 F 2003 ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO:6971 2351 2003 CRL. R.P. NO.1622 OF 2003 DISMISSED. SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE 22.11.2010 // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No: 1622 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of November 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 3 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.80,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. In the appeal the sentence was modified as imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. Crl.R.P. No: 1622 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 petitioners 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 petitioners/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 petitioners 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: 1622 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.40,000/- each would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Revision petitioners are 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 they fail to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, they 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: 1622 of 2003 :4: 6. In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS ( Judge) dl/