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. 2142 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.43/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.609/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ T.A. GEORGE @ RAJU, S/O. AUGUSTINE THADATHIL PURAYIDAM, MANALUMKAL P.O. AKALAKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K. PENNAMMA, W/O. KUMARAN, PANAYOLICKAL HOUE, MANALUMKAL P.O. AKALAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON 10/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO. 8655 OF 2003 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 2142 OF 2003 DISMISSED 10.12.2010 SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 2142 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. 609 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court, Kanjirapally challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.1,20,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 43 of 2002 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Kottayam was dismissed. Against that judgment, the accused filed this revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Crl.R.P.No. 2142 of 2003 2 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the complainant had no means to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused as loan. The appellate court discussed about this aspect in detail and found that Ext.P8 pass book will go to show that the complainant had in her account Rs.1,65,000/- on 24.2.1996, which was subsequently withdrawn and according to the complainant she had handed over the amount to her nephew for his business purpose and when the accused asked the amount, she received back that amount and gave Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused as loan. 4. The appellate court has given sufficient reasons for giving that amount to the accused, who is a school teacher and neighbour of the complainant, without obtaining any document initially. As regards the case of the accused that he lost cheque leaf during 1997 also, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has given sufficient reasons to discard the defence case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also given sufficient reasons for dismissing Crl.M.P. Crl.R.P.No. 2142 of 2003 3 Nos. 974of 2003, 975 of 2003 and 1040 of 2003 filed before that court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner re-iterated the same contentions raised by the accused before the trial court and the appellate court. 5. 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. Since the Crl.R.P.No. 2142 of 2003 4 appellate court has imposed only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 6. 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.1,20,000/- 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 Crl.R.P.No. 2142 of 2003 5 amount, if any, deposited in the trial court by the accused can be given credit to. 7. This revision petition is disposed of as above. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm