IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2585 of 2007()
1. SABU SEBASTIAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VINCENT THOMAS, THOTTAKKARA VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/07/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 2585 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of July, 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.76/2004 on the
file of the J.F.C.M., Perumbavoor 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 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
Crl.R.P.No.2585/07
: 2 :
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.
5. 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 by way of compensation under section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) within three
months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till the
rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision petitioner commits
default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. Money, if
any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed
by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks