IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 352 of 2000() --------------------------------- C.C. NO. 338/1996 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHAVAKKAD CRA. NO. 21/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- KESAVAN, S/O. NEDIYADATH KITTAPPA, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT. MINI JOHN PAREMALIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYANANDAN, S/O. KOLATHONGAD VELAYUDHAN, ANNAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K. RAMACHANDRAN, SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 352/2000 : 2 : ORDER ON Crl.M.P. NO. 2062/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 352/2000 DISMISSED 21.08. 2008 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================== Crl.R.P. No. 352 of 2000 ======================= Dated, this the 21st day of August,2008. O R D E R In this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 338 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 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 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 reasons which fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant made a Crl.R.P. No. 352/2000 -:2:- 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 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. The cheque amount was Rs.78,000/-. The lower appellate court while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to simple imprisonment for seven days directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.83,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant and on default to pay the said amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- from out of the compensation to the State for Crl.R.P. No. 352/2000 -:3:- the loss suffered by it. The direction to pay Rs.3000/- to the State from out of the compensation was wrong. As against Rs.83,000/-, the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as fine which shall be paid as compensation to the complainant, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. It is reported by the learned Magistrate that the revision petitioner had already undergone the substantive sentence as well as the default sentence. If so, what remains is the payment of compensation of Rs.80,000/-. It goes without saying that by undergoing the default sentence, the liability of the accused to pay the compensation is not wiped off. The complainant is free to take steps for levying the compensation amount in view of Section 431 r/w Section 421 Cr.P.C. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated, this the 21st day of August,2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 352/2000 -:4:- V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. 352 of 2000 ---------------------------------------- 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER Crl.R.P. No. 352/2000 -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. of 2008 ---------------------------------------- 23rd day of July, 2008 ORDER