P V KURIAN Vs. K J JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 110 of 2000 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.50,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine, if recovered, is ordered to be paid to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was dismissed.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complaint and the 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.50,000/- 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 three 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.