IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 501 of 2009() ----------------------------- S.T.NO.793 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM, CHITTUR CRA.283/2005 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) 1, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHYLASYLUM, W/O.CHRISTOPHER SYLUM, AMBATTUPARAMBU, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAM GOPAL, W/O.K.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 'VISAL', NEAR SREEKURUMBAKAVU, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = Crl.R.P. No.501 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 10 th day of February,2009 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 S.T.No.793 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Chittur, 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'). The cheque amount was Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,55,000/- 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. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (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 conviction. The said conviction has been Crl.R..P. No. 501/2009 -:2:- recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. 5. What now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The petitioner claims to have already undergone three months imprisonment pursuant to the sentence imposed on her by the courts below. If the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months, the same shall constitute substantive sentence to be imposed on the petitioner. In addition, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand only). The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the trial court or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period she shall suffer simple imprisonment for four 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 petitioner. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R..P. No. 501/2009 -:3:-