IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 919 of 1999() ----------------------------- CRA.319/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.3598/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN ASARI, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN ASARI, KARUVANNUR HOUSE, VELLATTANJORE POST, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. VASU, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PULLANIPARAMBATH HOUSE, ELAVALLY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================== Crl.R.P. No. 919 of 1999 ======================= Dated, this the 11th day of April,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 S.T. No. 3598 of 1995 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 2: 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 what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. The petitioner has already deposited the cheque amount of Rs.35,000/-. The cheque was issued in the year 1995. Having regard to the long passage of 13 years, the petitioner will have to deposit a further amount of Rs.7,500/- within one month from today failing which the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 3: sentence. If the petitioner has already deposited the cheque amount of Rs.35,000/- and he deposits a further amount of Rs.7.500/- as ordered above within the time granted, it shall be treated as fine and the whole fine amount shall be paid to the 1st respondent/complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. No other sentence is proposed to be imposed on the revision petitioner. 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 4: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 919 of 1999 ---------------------------------------- 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 5: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.M.A. No. 3594 & 3595 of 2008 in Crl.R.P. No. 919 of 1999 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008. O R D E R Crl.M.A. No. 3594/2008 Since the respondent complainant has not entered appearance in the above Crl.R.P., notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit in support of the petition, the delay is condoned. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. CrL.M.A. No. 3595/2008 Heard. Allowed. CRL.R.P. NO. 919/1999 : 6: V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv