IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3741 of 2007()
1. SUNIL C.CHARADAI, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S TEAM DEALS, KC 1/19982,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :18/10/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 3741 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 18th 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 C.C. No.309/1998 on the
file of the Additional CJM(E.O.), Ernakulam 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
Crl.R.P.No.3741/07
: 2 :
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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within two
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 two 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