IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 647 of 2009() 1. SUNDARESHAN, S/O.PONNAPPAN, AGED 43, ... Petitioner Vs 1. ABDUL LATHEEF,THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ... Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :24/02/2009 O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 647 of 2009 ................................................ Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009. 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 C.C.
No.734 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Alappuzha 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.1,35,000/-. The
fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.
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
Crl.R..P. No. 647/2009 -:2:-
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. I do not find any error,
illegality or impropriety in the evidence 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 recent 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.1,35,000/-
Crl.R..P. No. 647/2009 -:3:-
(Rupees one lakh and thirty five 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
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
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.