IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2977 of 2007()
1. VISWAJITH KURUP, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
2. AUGUST HOLIDAYS (I) (P) LTD.,
Vs
1. M.P.KRISHNA KUMAR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SIVAKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/08/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 2977 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioners who were the accused in C.C. No.395/2002 on
the file of the J.F.C.M., Ramankary challenge the conviction entered
and the sentence passed against them 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 Petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners
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 petitioners 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 Petitioners/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 petitioners
while entering the above finding. The said finding has been recorded
Crl.R.P.No.2977/07
: 2 :
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 petitioners.
4. What now survives for consideration is the question as to
whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision
Petitioners. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on
the revision petitioners provided they comply with the condition
hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioners pay 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)
within two months from today, then they need to undergo only
imprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision
petitioners commit default in making the payment as aforesaid, they
shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default
sentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioners pursuant to the
orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to
the revision petitioners.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but
modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks