IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2549 of 2007()
1. VAZHAYIL MUHAMMED ASLAM, S/O.USMAN,
... Petitioner
2. VAZHAYIL TRADERS, MERCHANTS &
Vs
1. K.P.MANI, S/O.KAMALADASAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.MOHAMED ALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 2549 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec.
401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who were the accused in S.T.
No.603/2005 on the file of the Special J.F.C.M.(Marad cases),
Kozhikode challenge the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against them 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 Petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision
Petitioners re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.
The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in
question was drawn by the appellants 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
Crl.R.P.No.2549/07
: 2 :
(b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and that the Revision
Petitioners/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 petitioners 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 petitioners.
4. What now survives for consideration is the question as
to whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision
Petitioners.
5. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence
imposed on the appellants provided they comply with the condition
hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the 1st revision petitioner
pays to the 1st respondent complainant by way of compensation
under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty
thousand only) within three months from today and the 2nd revision
petitioner remits the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) within one month from today, then the 1st revision
Crl.R.P.No.2549/07
: 3 :
petitioner need to undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the
court. If on the other hand, the revision petitioners commit default
in making the payment as aforesaid, the sentence imposed on
them by the lower appellate court shall revive. Money, if any, paid
by the revision petitioners pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by
the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision
petitioners.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks