A.R.Ramakammath vs Peringottukara Chits Ltd. on 27 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3722 of 2006()


1. A.R.RAMAKAMMATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PERINGOTTUKARA CHITS LTD., (FORMERLY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :27/11/2007

 O R D E R
                      V.RAMKUMAR, J.
            =========================
                  Crl.R.P. No. 3722 of 2006 A
           ==========================
         Dated this the 23rd day of November, 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 S.T. No. 201 of

2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha

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 petitioner 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 the defence set up by the revision

petitioner while entering the above finding. The said finding has

CRL.R.P. NO. 3722/2006 : 2:

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, however, inclined to modify the sentence in the light

of the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court that no

default sentence can be imposed for an order for compensation

under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed on the

revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay

fine of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) {giving credit

to a sum of Rs.70,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner

before the trial court pursuant to the orders of the court and

which amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st

respondent/complainant} which shall be deposited within six

months from today and on default to make the payment, he shall

suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount

shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.

This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but

modifying the sentence as above.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

CRL.R.P. NO. 3722/2006 : 3: