THILAKAN Vs. N K RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 450 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable INstruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The chequeamount was Rs. 40,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs. 40,000/-.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) WHAT now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.No doubt, now after the decision of the Apex Court in Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. and Another (2009) 6 SCC 652 it is permissible for the Court to slap a default sentence of imprisonmentwhile awarding compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C.But, in that event, a sentence of imprisonment will be inevitable. I am, however, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this casea sentence of fine with an appropriate default sentence will suffice. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only).The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) 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 five months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails todeposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.