IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 841 of 2000() ----------------------------- CC.417/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD CRRP.43/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------- JOSE AGED 52, S/O.VADAKKINATT LONAPPAN, VENMANAD DESOM, PAVARTTY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. T.B.SIDHARTHAN AGED 43, S/O.T.M.BHASKARAN, THANIYOLVEETTIL, IRINGAPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No.841 of 2000 ................................................ Dated this the 23 rd day of June, 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.417 of 1998 on the file of the, J.F.C.M, Chavakkad, 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 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.841/2000 -: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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya (2008(1)KLT 851), default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Dated this the 23 rd day of June, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R.P.No.841/2000 -:3:-