IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 3491 of 2007() 1. T.N.SHAJI, 37 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, ... Petitioner Vs 1. SAJEEV.R., S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, ... Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.T.D.ROBIN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :28/09/2007 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 3491 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of September, 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 S.T.
No.4562/2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-II, Aluva 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
: 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.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) [giving credit to the sum of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) deposited before the trial
court pursuant to the direction by the first appellate court and
which amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st
respondent complainant] within three months from today, then he
: 3 :
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 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
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)