IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 626 of 2010()
1. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. KOCHUNNY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UDAYAKRISHNAN, S/O. ARU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
.................................................
Crl.R.P. No. 626 of 2010
................................................
Dated: 19th February, 2010
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. 2308 of 2006 on the file of the J.f.C.M.II, Palakkad
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. 25,000/-. The
fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.
30,000/-.
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. This Court sitting in the rarefied
Crl.R..P. No. 626 of 2010 -:2:-
revisional jurisdiction will be loath to interfere with the findings
of fact recorded by the Courts below concurrently. I do not
find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so
recorded 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 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. 33,000/-
(Rupees thirty three 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 five 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 19th day of February, 2010.
Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
ani/- /true copy/
P.S. to Judge
Crl.R..P. No. 626 of 2010 -:3:-
