IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1618 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.436/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.49/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- N.K.MOIDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED, NADUKANDY HOUSE, P.O.THIKKODI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SAJI SRI.C.D.SHAJU RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT & STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. K.KHALID, S/O.MUHAMMED, KANDOTH HOUSE, PO THIKKODI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON 06/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1618 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 49 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.50,000/- In the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for six months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for one month Crl.R.P.No. 1618 of 2002 2 and if the fine amount is realised, it will be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. The revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant and that it was dishonoured and the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the first respondent/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 accused 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 Crl.R.P.No. 1618 of 2002 3 recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. 4. The lower appellate court reduced the sentence of fine as Rs.5,000/- as the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class is competentonly to impose a maximum fine of Rs.5,000/- Section 143 of the N.I. Act, which was inserted by Act 55 of 2002, makes it clear that the Judicial First Class Magistrate is competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.5,000/- 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned appellate Court while sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- ought to have ordered the accused to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount to the complainant. 6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that out of the cheque amount, he has discharged Rs.20,000/- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I Crl.R.P.No. 1618 of 2002 4 am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused 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. 10 . In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as above. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm