Kerala High Court
Dr. K.K. Bhargavi vs Sukeesh on 13 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 571 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2013 IN CRA 32/2007 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 03.01.2007 IN STC 1550/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
DR. K.K. BHARGAVI
AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O.BHASKARAN UNNI, "ALLIED HOSPITAL", ARTHAT,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 SUKESH
S/O.A.K.KORAN,P O CHOVVA,KANNUR,REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.E.DEEJITH,
S/O.MUKUNDAN, "PRABHA",ELAYAVOOR-670006.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SANTHOSHKUMAR K.C
R1 BY K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 07.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.768/2023, THE COURT ON 13.12.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 768 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2013 IN CRA 32/2007 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 03.01.2007 IN STC 1550/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
SUKESH
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.A.K.KORAN, "PRABATH", P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M.E.DEEJITH, S/O.MUKUNDAN, 'PRABHA', ELAYAVOOR,
MUNDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002.
BY ADVS.
K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
K.S.SUDHA
ANUPAMA JOHNY
VISMAYA VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 DR.BHARGAVI UNNI
W/O.DR.BHASKARAN UNNI, 'ALLIED' HOSPITAL LTD.,
2/33, ARTHAT, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM,
THRISSUR -, PIN - 680521.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
R1 BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
R2 BY SMT.MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 07.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.571/2023, THE COURT ON 13.12.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 and 768 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023
ORDER
Sri.Sukesh filed S.T.C.No.1550 of 2005 before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur alleging that Dr.K.K.Bhargavi
committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I.Act). The learned Magistrate after
trial convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. She was further ordered to pay
Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complaint. The accused
appealed. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but
modified the sentence. The accused was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court. The order to pay
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was maintained. Aggrieved by
the same, the accused filed Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2023. The
complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.768 of 2023 and his grievance is that
the compensation ordered was insufficient and twice the amount
of cheque should have been ordered as compensation.
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
2. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, the
learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public
Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
the accused had already undergone sentence and paid the
amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The said fact is
affirmed by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that having
the accused undergone sentence and paid the amount of
compensation, she does not pursue her revision. In the light
of the said submission, Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2023 is to be
dismissed as withdrawn.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant places
reliance on the direction issued by the Apex court in Vijayan
R. v. Baby another [(2012) 1 SCC 260] that in all cases of
conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the
courts shall lean in favour of ordering compensation by
imposing fine upto twice the cheque amount keeping in mind
the cheque amount and the interest thereon at the rate of 9%
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
per annum. The learned counsel would submit that the
amount covered by the cheque fell due on 25.10.2004 and the
compensation ordered by the court is the cheque amount
only. When that amount was paid recently alone, there
occurred denial of the compensation the complainant
legitimately entitled. It is accordingly contended that the
order of the courts below allowing compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- alone is incorrect and illegal requiring
interference by this Court.
5. In the light of the direction of the Apex court
contained in Vijayan (supra), the court while imposing fine or
compensation, interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall
ordinarily form its part. Of course, if there is sufficient reason
the said rule can be departed from. In Sasikumar v.
Ushadevi [2023 (6) KHC 444] this Court, while considering
a revision petition where a question of inadequacy of
compensation was raised, held that the Criminal Court while
sentencing an accused for the offence under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act has to keep the compensatory part in mind, which
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
has to be commensurate with the cheque amount and not to
exceed twice the amount, so that it can be appropriated
towards the compensation payable to the complainant under
Section 357 of the Code.
6. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
having the accused undergone the sentence and paid the
amount of compensation, it is quite unjust and inappropriate
to interfere with the order regarding payment of
compensation. It is also submitted that the accused is now
living in penury and fastening her with liability to pay a
further amount of compensation will bring about untold
miseries to her. Since the revision petition filed by the accused
is still pending, the order of sentence had not become final
and therefore there is no prohibition in interfering with order
of sentence by the court below, especially when the appellate
court altered the sentence. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case including the amount of the cheque
and the present condition of the accused, I am of the view
that the amount of compensation shall be Rs.2,00,000/-.
Crl.R.P.Nos.571 & 768 of 2023
7. Accordingly,
i) Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2023 is dismissed as withdrawn; and
ii) Crl.R.P No.768 of 2023 is allowed and while maintaining
the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate
court, the accused is ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only). The amount of
compensation already paid will be given credit.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
