IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 680 of 2007()
1. PACHATT LAKSHMANAN, S/O.KORUKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. P.N. RAJAN, S/O.NANU, BAIJU NIVAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISH R. MENON
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/09/2007
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
.................................................
Crl.R.P. No. 680 OF 2007
................................................
Dated this the 25th day of September, 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 1029 of 2001 on the file of the
J.F.C.M, Parappanangadi 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 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,
CRL. R.P. NO. 680/2007 : 2:
inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.
Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the first respondent
complainant by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of
Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only) (giving credit to a sum of
Rs.70,000/- already deposited before the trial court pursuant to orders of the
appellate and revisional court and this amount shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by the 2nd respondent/complainant) within five months from
today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the court.
If the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as
aforesaid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of
default sentence.
5. Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the
orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the
petitioner.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the
sentence as above.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv