K.G.Haridas vs P.P.James on 21 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 236 of 2003()


1. K.G.HARIDAS, KOPLERIKKATTIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.S.MURALEEKRISHNA, KAUSTHUBHAM,

                        Vs



1. P.P.JAMES, PROPRIETOR, MAHARANI VISIONS
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :21/12/2010

 O R D E R
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.R.P.No. 236 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 C.C.No. 135 of

1999 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Thodupuzha. The cheque amount was Rs.10,000/- In the

trial court the accused were convicted under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each. The

appeal filed by them as Crl.A.No. 62 of 2001 before the

Sessions Court, Thodupuzha was dismissed. Against that

conviction and sentence the accused filed this revision petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners,

learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioners reiterated the same contentions raised before the

Crl.R.P.No. 236 of 2003

2

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. 236 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.5,000/- 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 one month 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 one month 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. 236 of 2003

4

6. Accordingly this Revision Petition is disposed of

confirming the conviction entered and by modifying the sentence

imposed on the revision petitioners.

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm