IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2919 of 2005() ------------------------------ CRA.156/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.656/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ TOMY VARGHESE, S/O. ABRAHAM VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, ELENJICKAL, Y.M.C.A. ROAD,ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.JAYAN.C.DAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. B. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, ALUMPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUNICIPAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 2919/2005 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO. 19632/2005 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 2919/2005 DISMISSED 26.02.2008 SD/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 2919 of 2005 ................................................ Dated, this the 26th day of February,2008. 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. 656 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC. . 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the complainant. 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 the reason that the accused had closed the account years before the issuance of the cheque, 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 N.I 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 finding of conviction. 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 CRL.R.P.NO. 2919/2005 -:2:- 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. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 420 IPC the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty 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 four 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. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv