T.N.Shaji vs Sajeev.R. on 28 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
T.N.Shaji vs Sajeev.R. on 28 September, 2007




Crl Rev Pet No. 3491 of 2007()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent


                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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *