IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2197 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.514/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.3203/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: -------------------------------- 1. SREEDEVI CHITS AND FINANCE, SREEDEVI BUILDINGS, VALLANGI, NENMARA, PALAKKAD 2. V.MUTHU MANAGING PARTNER, SREEDEVI CHITS AND FINANCE, SREEDEVI BUILDINGS, VALLANGI, NERMANA, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.T.RAGHAVAN, 52 YEARS KUTHIRAPARA KUNISSERRI,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No.2197 of 2008 ................................................ Dated this the 3 rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who were the accused in S.T.No.3203 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Alathur, challenges 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 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 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.2197/2008 -: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 petitioners are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees twenty three thousand only) The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners are permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within four 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 3 rd day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R.P.No.2197/2008 -:3:-