Loading...

Babu Raj vs State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Babu Raj vs State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

confirmed.

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

revision petitioner.

Dated this the 18th day of March 2009.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

ani/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information