IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2824 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA NO.169 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM C.C.NO.1673 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M-1, KOLLAM REVN. PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. M/S.VASANTH APARTMENTS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD, T.C9/2105, SANKAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.B.SATHISH NAIR, (COMPANY IS NOT IN EXISTENCE). 2. B.SATHISH NAIR, HOUSE NO.134, DHARSAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DR.NAZIMUDHEEN, CHAITHANYA, NEERAVIL, PERINADU, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No.2824 of 2008 ................................................ Dated this the 19 th day of August, 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.1673 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Kollam, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them 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 Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners re- iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioners 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 Petitioners/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 petitioners 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.2824/2008 -:2:- finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. The conviction was thus rightly entered against the petitioners. 4. What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. 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 are together sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand only) which shall be deposited within eight months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If the 2nd petitioner 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 petitioners. Dated this the 19 th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R.P.No.2824/2008 -:3:-