BABU SURENDRANATH Vs. ATHMADASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl.R.P. is filed by the accused in S.T.No. 1051 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. The cheque amount was Rs.25,000/- In the trial court the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 162 of 1998 before the Additional Sessions Court - II, Mavelikkara was dismissed. Against that conviction and sentence the accused filed this revision petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revision petitioner, 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.25,000/- 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.