IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1191 of 2003()
1. T.R.PRABHAKARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DAVIS FRANCIS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.N.K.UNNIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No: 1191 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of November 2010
O R D E R
This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.
1812 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court – I, Thrrisur challenging the conviction and sentence
passed against him for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. In the
Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal
the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for 15 days
and to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/-, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor.
Crl.R.P. No: 1191 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 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: 1191 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.1,00,000/-
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 six 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: 1191 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 petitioner.
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
( Judge)
dl/