IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2007/2ND ASWINA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3744 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.23/2006 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.459/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, ERATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHENKUR, NETTAYAM P.O., POOYAPPALLY, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SASIKUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, RADHAVILASOM, VILAKKUPPARA P.O., AYIRANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2007, THE COURT ON 24/09/2007 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 3744 of 2006 ................................................ Dated: 24-09-2007 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..459 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Punalur 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 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 a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision Petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Crl.R.P. 3744 of 2006 -:2:- Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the cheque amount had already been deposited. It can be withdrawn by the 2nd respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for which purpose he shall surrender before the trial court on 18-10-2007. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/-