Gopalakrishnan Nair vs K.K.Chandran on 5 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2558 of 2008()


1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.AHZAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :05/08/2008

 O R D E R
                              V.RAMKUMAR, J.
               .................................................
                         Crl.R.P. No.2558 of 2008
                ................................................
                  Dated this the 5th day of August, 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. 415 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’).

2. Heard both sides

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 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

Crl.R.P.No.2558/2008 -:2:-

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.

As against the cheque amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty

thousand only), the revision petitioner already deposited before the trial court a

sum of Rs.1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) pursuant to the

interim order passed by this Court. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification on the part of the court

below in imposing a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the sum of

Rs.1,30,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner shall constitute the fine. The

sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified to one of fine only which

shall be the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner. The trial court

shall permit the 1st respondent/complainant to withdraw the aforementioned

amount of Rs.1,30,000/- lying in deposit.

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction

entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

sj

Crl.R.P.No.2558/2008 -:3:-