K G HARIDAS Vs. P P JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl.R.P. is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 136 of 1999 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. The cheque amount was Rs.5,000/- 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. The appeal filed by them as Crl.A.No. 61 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.) 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.3,000/- 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.