IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2558 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.239/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.415/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, VADAKKE KUZHIVILAKATH PUTHEN VEETTIL (H) AYYANIMUTTOM DESOM, MANACAUD VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No.2558 of 2008 ................................................ Dated this the 5 th day of August, 2008 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No. 415 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Thrissur, 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. Heard both sides 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 Crl.R.P.No.2558/2008 -:2:- 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 what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. As against the cheque amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only), the revision petitioner already deposited before the trial court a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification on the part of the court below in imposing a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.1,30,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner shall constitute the fine. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified to one of fine only which shall be the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner. The trial court shall permit the 1st respondent/complainant to withdraw the aforementioned amount of Rs.1,30,000/- lying in deposit. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Dated this the 5 th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R.P.No.2558/2008 -:3:-