Noushad vs Ajimon K.B on 3 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3528 of 2007()


1. NOUSHAD, AGED 45 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AJIMON K.B, S/O.BHARATHAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SHAJU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :03/10/2007

 O R D E R
                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                        Crl. R.P. No. 3528 OF 2007
                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                  Dated this the 3rd day of October, 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 S.T. No.1216/2002 on the

file of the J.F.C.M., Vaikom 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

revision 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

Crl.R.P.No.3528/07
: 2 :

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. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on

the revision petitioner provided he complies with the condition

hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the

1st respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357

(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only)

within four months from today, then he need to undergo only

imprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision

petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall

undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default

sentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the

orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to

the revision petitioner.

This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but

modifying the sentence as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks