IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2007 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2073 of 2003() ---------------------------------- CRA NO. 29/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA C.C. NO. 138/1998 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PEERMADE. REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.C.SUNNY, KUTTIVAYALIL HOUSE, KOLLAMPATTADA KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO SMT. ASHA CHACKO RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. MOHANDAS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, MECHITHARA VEETTIL, (EXCELLENT AUTO ELECTRICAL WORKS) KUMILY KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 2073/2003 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO. 8418/2003 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 2073/2003 DISMISSED 29.10.2007 SD/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ========================= Crl.R.P. No. 2073 of 2003 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 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.138 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Peermade 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. 2073/2003 -: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 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 in the light of the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court that no default sentence can be imposed for an order for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) (giving credit to a sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court and which amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st respondent/complainant) which shall be deposited within three months from today and on default to make the payment, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv