IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3390 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.162/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA ST.1051/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- BABU SURENDRANATH, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY KANDATHIL VEEDU, CHIRAKKADAVAM, GOVINDAMUTTOM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ATHMADASAN, S/O. KOCHUVELUMBAN, PALATHINKEEZHIL VEEDU, CHIRAKADAVAM KAYAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO. 13705/03 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 3390 OF 2003 DISMISSED 21.12.2010 SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3390 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Crl.R.P. is filed by the accused in S.T.No. 1051 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. The cheque amount was Rs.25,000/- In the trial court the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 162 of 1998 before the Additional Sessions Court - II, Mavelikkara was dismissed. Against that conviction and sentence the accused filed this revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.R.P.No. 3390 of 2003 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contentions 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. 3390 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.25,000/- 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. 3390 of 2003 4 6. Accordingly 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