IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 821 of 2008()
1. JULIE MEENAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.ASIATIC RUBRO COMPLEX,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/03/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
.................................................
Crl.R.P. No. 821 of 2008
................................................
Dated, this the 25th day of March,2008.
O R D E R
In this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with
Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.
1422 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam 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. 821/2008 -: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. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the
recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan
Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya rendered on 3-8-2007
in Crl.Appeal 1013 of 2007, default sentence cannot be
imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under
CRL.R.P. NO. 821/2008 -:3:-
Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the conviction under
Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifteen thousand
only) {after giving credit to the sum of Rs.75,000/- deposited
before the trial court and which amount shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by the 1st respondent/complainant}. The said fine
shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C.
The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine
amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation
to the complainant within eight months from today and produce
a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct
payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within
the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment
for three months by way of default sentence.
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. 821/2008 -:4:-