IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1128 of 2003()
1. K.C.HARIDAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KELTRON
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.JOHN, SC FOR KELTRON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :26/11/2010
O R D E R
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P. No:1128 of 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 26th day of November 2010
O R D E R
This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C.
No.172 of 1998 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam challenging the
conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque
amount was Rs.22,675/-. In the Trial Court, the accused
was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.28,000/-. In default of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. If the fine amount is realised,
Rs.26,000/- shall be given to the complainant towards cost
and compensation under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. In the
appeal the sentence is modified to simple imprisonment for
Crl.R.P. No:1128 of 2003
-: 2 :-
one month and fine of Rs.26,000/-. In default of payment of
fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. If the fine amount is realised Rs.26,000/- shall be
paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1)
of Cr.P.C.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the
public prosecutor.
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
Crl.R.P. No:1128 of 2003
-: 3 :-
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.
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.27,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 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
Crl.R.P. No:1128 of 2003
-: 4 :-
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.
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)
jvt/