IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2007 / 18TH SRAVANA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2899 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.42/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.913/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, THANNIPPARA HOUSE, KATHALANGAPADY, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI SRI.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. ANIL MATHEW, MUTHALAKUZHI HOUSE, ANAKKALLU P.O., MANJAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 2899 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 petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.913/2003 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 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 Crl.R.P.No.2899/07 : 2 : Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. The case of the revision petitioner is that he had previous transaction with the father of the complainant and in connection with the same, he had entrusted a blank signed cheque with the father of the complainant four or five years ago. The falsity of the above defence was laid bare by Ext.P7 series of the pages of the cheque issue register in which it is categorically shown that the cheque book containing the cheque leaf in question itself was issued to the accused only on 28.11.01. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for comparison of the writings in the cheque with the admitted writings of the revision petitioner. The lower appellate court had also no difficulty in discarding the said defence set up by the revision petitioner. 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.2899/07 : 3 : 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 2nd respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) within three months from today, then he 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 petitioner. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE) aks