IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 699 of 2004(B) 1. BABU RAJ, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent 2. K.BHARATHAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :18/03/2009 O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 699 of 2004 ................................................ Dated: 18th March, 2009 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 S.T. No.
277 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Thrissur 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’). The
cheque amount was Rs. 1, 50,000/-. The fine/compensation
ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs. 2,10,000/-.
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.
4. The courts below have concurrently held that the
cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the
complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with
clauses (a) and (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 conviction. The said
conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the
oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error,
illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded
Crl.R..P. No. 699 of 2004 -:2:-
concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby
5. What now survives for consideration is the legality of
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 – 2008 (1) KLT 851
default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an
order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am,
therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only.
Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the
revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-
(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only). 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 six 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
Dated this the 18th day of March 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.