IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1625 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.644/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.284/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY ................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ KUMARESAN, C.NO.7568, DISTIRCT JAIL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 1625 of 2008 ................................................ Dated: 04-07-2008 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. 284 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Kanjirappally, 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 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 Crl.R..P. No. 1625 of 2008 -:2:- 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 remains to be considered is the question as to the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for five months and directed him to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- being the cheque amount as compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. with a default sentence of three months. The lower appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner has been undergoing the sentence since 10-07-2007 onwards. It is not known whether the petitioner has served out the substantive sentence as well as the default sentence. However, I am inclined to hold that the substantive sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner shall be sufficient sentence. In addition to that he is sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) which shall be paid either directly to the complainant or deposited before the trial court within a period of six months from today failing which the petitioner shall undergo Crl.R..P. No. 1625 of 2008 -:3:- simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. 5. The petitioner shall be released from custody fothwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. However, the said release shall be subject to his liability pay or deposit the fine amount as above within the period of six months as indicated above. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence impose on the revision petitioner. Dated this the 4th day of July 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/-