IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 919 of 1999()
1. GOPALAKRISHNAN ASARI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VASU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
======================
Crl.R.P. No. 919 of 1999
=======================
Dated, this the 11th day of April,2008.
O R D E R
In this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.
No. 3598 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Chavakkad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against him 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 and also the learned counsel
for the complainant.
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
CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 2:
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 what should be the proper sentence to be imposed
on the revision petitioner. The petitioner has already deposited
the cheque amount of Rs.35,000/-. The cheque was issued in the
year 1995. Having regard to the long passage of 13 years, the
petitioner will have to deposit a further amount of Rs.7,500/-
within one month from today failing which the petitioner shall
undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default
CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 3:
sentence. If the petitioner has already deposited the cheque
amount of Rs.35,000/- and he deposits a further amount of
Rs.7.500/- as ordered above within the time granted, it shall be
treated as fine and the whole fine amount shall be paid to the 1st
respondent/complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)
Cr.P.C. No other sentence is proposed to be imposed on the
revision petitioner.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the
revision petitioner.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 4:
V. RAMKUMAR, J
——————————————-
CRL. R.P. NO. 919 of 1999
—————————————-
11th day of April, 2008
ORDER
CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 5:
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
Crl.M.A. No. 3594 & 3595 of 2008
in
Crl.R.P. No. 919 of 1999
==========================
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008.
O R D E R
Crl.M.A. No. 3594/2008
Since the respondent complainant has not entered
appearance in the above Crl.R.P., notice to the 1st respondent is
dispensed with. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit
in support of the petition, the delay is condoned.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
CrL.M.A. No. 3595/2008
Heard. Allowed.
CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 6:
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv