Compensation in cheque bounce cases must reflect current value and compensate for undue delay to uphold justice.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.306/1993.

Basing upon a cheque dated 17.5.1993 for Rs.74,280/-, his predecessor in interest prosecuted the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The trial court found the 1st respondent guilty by judgment dated 9.5.1995. She was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the 1st respondent preferred Crl.A.No.119/1995 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. In appeal the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs.80,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, Rs.77,500/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, the 1st respondent preferred Crl.R.P.No.669/1998 before this Court.

: 2:

By order dated 31.5.2006, the revision petition was allowed on finding that the trial court was empowered only to impose a fine of Rs.5,000/- and that the Sessions Judge in appeal imposed a fine of Rs.80,000/- which is not sustainable. The conviction as confirmed in appeal was found sustainable. Therefore to modify the sentence, the case was remitted back to the trial court. By the impugned judgment, the trial court modified the sentence to a compensation of Rs.95,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the inadequacy of the sentence, this revision petition is preferred.

2. I have heard Sri. Lowel Cherian, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None represented for the 2nd respondent. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment, I find that the sentence awarded is too inadequate. As against the cheque for Rs.74,280/- issued in 1993, after a period of thirteen years, the compensation awarded is only Rs.95,000/-. Now 19 years over. The revision petitioner had to fight various rounds of litigation. The statutory rate of interest is 18%. Money value is going down. The 1st : 3:

respondent had been enjoying the cheque amount for the last 19 years. The strain and labour that the petitioner had to suffer for the last nineteen years is beyond the words to express. I find that the sentence under challenge is too inadequate. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- with direction to pay Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation to the revision petitioner would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The sentence is enhanced to a fine of Rs.5,000/- and a direction to pay Rs.1,40,000/- (one lakh forty thousand only) as compensation to the revision petitioner. In default of payment of fine and compensation, the 1st respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and five months respectively. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.

Sd/-

P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

cl P.S. to Judge

: 4:

: 5: