IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4031 of 2007()
1. JACOB, S/O. GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.N. SANTHOSH, S/O. NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :13/11/2007
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
=========================
Crl.R.P. No. 4031 of 2007
==========================
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.584 of 2002 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. 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. 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
CRL. R.P. NO. 4031 of 2007
-:2:-
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 a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision
Petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am, however, inclined to modify the sentence in the light of the recent
pronouncement by the Supreme Court that no default sentence can be
imposed for an order for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and
instead he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five
thousand only) which shall be deposited within four months from
today and on default to make the payment, he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for three months. The fine amount shall be paid as
compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL. R.P. NO. 4031 of 2007
-:3:-