IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2007 / 5TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2491 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.227/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI ST.79/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ RAFFIQUE P.O., S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, PAPPADITHIL HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM (PO), PULLOOR, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR SMT.E.SHEENA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. M. HARIS, S/O. MAIMI, MUSLIARAKATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM (P.O), MELEKKAM, MANJERI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 2491 of 2007 ................................................ Dated: 26-06-2007 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 S.T.No. 79/04 on the file of the J.F.C.M - II, (Forest Offences), Manjeri 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 appellant 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 Crl.R.P. 2491 of 2007 -:2:- 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. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant provided he complies with the condition hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the first respondent complainant by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within three months from today, then he need to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, the sentence imposed on him by the court below shall revive. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the petitioner. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/- Crl.R.P. 2491 of 2007 -:3:-