IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1622 of 2003()
1. MANAGING PARTNER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEEPAK V.DAMODHAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No: 1622 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of November 2010
O R D E R
This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.
3 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kunnamkulam challenging the conviction and sentence passed
against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.80,000/-. In the Trial
Court, the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a compensation
of Rs.80,000/-. In the appeal the sentence was modified as
imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation
of Rs.1,25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners,
learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor.
Crl.R.P. No: 1622 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 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: 1622 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.40,000/-
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 six months 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 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: 1622 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 petitioners.
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
( Judge)
dl/