IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1967 of 2007()
1. K.HARIKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :22/06/2007
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No. 1967/2007
-----------------------------
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read
with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused
in C.C. No.1037/2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I,
Alappuzha, 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’).
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
Crl.R.P.1967/2007
2
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 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. What now survives for consideration is the
question as to whether a proper sentence has been
imposed on the Revision Petitioner. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined
to modify the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner. Accordingly if the revision petitioner pays to
the first respondent, complainant, a sum of Rupees One
Lakh Fifteen Thousand by way of compensation under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C within six months from today, he
need undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the
Crl.R.P.1967/2007
3
Court. If the revision petitioner commits default in
making the payment as aforesaid, the sentence imposed
on him by the Courts below shall be revived.
5. The amount if any, deposited by the revision
petitioner during the pendecy of the appeal before the
Lower Appellate court shall be re-funded to him.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction but modifying the sentence as above.
V.RAMKUMAR,
JUDGE
mrcs