IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 534 of 2004(B)
1. PRAKASAN S/O. NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR. SHAJU ANONY S/O. ANTONY,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No: 534 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of December 2010
O R D E R
This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.794
of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Chalakudy challenging the conviction and sentence passed against
him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The
cheque amount was Rs.1,90,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In
the appeal the conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified
to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
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
Crl.R.P. No: 534 of 2004
:2:
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.
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
Crl.R.P. No: 534 of 2004
:3:
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the
accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,90,000/- 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.
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/
