IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4041 of 2006(A)
1. USHAKUMARI @ USHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DAYANANDAN, S/O. SAHADEVAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJI MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :15/10/2007
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
=========================
Crl.R.P. No. 4041 of 2006
==========================
Dated this the 15th 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. 578 of 2003 on
the file of the J.F.C.M, Mavelikkara challenges the conviction entered
and the sentence passed against her 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 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 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.
CRL. R.P. NO. 4040/2006A
-:2:-
4. What now survives for consideration is the question as to
whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision
Petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the first
respondent complainant by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3)
Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) within
four months from today, then she need to undergo only
imprisonment till the rising of the court. If the revision petitioner
commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, she shall
undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default
sentence.
5. Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to
the orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to
the petitioner.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv