IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2456 of 2007()
1. P.SURESH KUMAR, S/O GOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.RAJAN, S/O RAMAN, AGED 69 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :21/06/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 2456 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner who was the accused in S.T.
No.3183/2001 on the file of the JFCM-V, Kozhikode, challenges the
conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by
the courts below for an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner
re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. The courts below
have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the
appellant in favour of the complainant on the drawee bank, that the
cheque was validly presented to the bank, that it was dishonoured for
reasons which fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant
made a demand for payment by a notice in time in accordance with
clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and that the Revision
Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt
of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected
Crl.R.P.No.2456/07
: 2 :
the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the above
finding. The said finding has been recorded on an appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or
impropriety in the finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below.
The conviction was thus rightly entered against the petitioner.
4. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on
the appellant provided he complies with the condition hereinafter
mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the 1st
respondent complainant or his legal heirs by way of compensation under
section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand
only) (less the amount, if any, already remitted) within three months from
today, then he need to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court.
If on the other hand, the revision petitioner commits default in making
the payment as aforesaid, the sentence imposed on him by the courts
below shall revive.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks