Sajeev Ravi vs R.Ravindran And Another on 23 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3959 of 2010()



1. SAJEEV RAVI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. R.RAVINDRAN AND ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :23/12/2010

 O R D E R
                              V.RAMKUMAR, J.
                   .................................................
                   Crl.R.P. No. 3959 OF 2010
                    ................................................
                           Dated: 23-12-2010

                                    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. 85 of 2006 on the

file of the J.F.C.M. VII, Thiruvananthapuram, 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 ` 1,50,000/-. The

fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 1,50,000/-.

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

Crl.R..P. No. 3959 of 2010 -:2:-

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 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. No doubt, now after the

decision of the Apex Court in Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. and

Another (2009) 6 SCC 652 it is permissible for the Court to slap a

default sentence of imprisonment while awarding compensation

under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. But, in that event, a sentence of

imprisonment will be inevitable. I am, however, of the view that in

the facts and circumstances of this case a sentence of fine with an

appropriate default sentence will suffice. Accordingly, for the

conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is

sentenced to pay a fine of ` 1,60,000/-. (Rupees one lakh sixty

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 six months from today and

produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct

Crl.R..P. No. 3959 of 2010 -:3:-

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 23rd day of December, 2010.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

ani/-