IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2968 of 2007()
1. REGI.C.JOHN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.VIJAYAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/08/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 2968 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of August, 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.271/2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Ramankary 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
Crl.R.P.No.2968/07
: 2 :
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 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.51,000/-
(Rupees fifty one thousand only) [giving credit to the sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited
pursuant to orders passed by the lower appellate court and which
can be withdrawn by the 1st respondent complainant] within three
months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till
Crl.R.P.No.2968/07
: 3 :
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