Loading...

P.L.Thankachan vs N.J.Chakko on 10 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.L.Thankachan vs N.J.Chakko on 10 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3646 of 2007()


1. P.L.THANKACHAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. N.J.CHAKKO, AGED 58 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :10/10/2007

 O R D E R
                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                        Crl. R.P. No. 3646 OF 2007
                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 Dated this the 10th 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.2059/2005 on the

file of the J.F.C.M.-I, Thamarassery 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.3646/07
: 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.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five

thousand only) within five 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

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