IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2007 / 30TH ASWINA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3740 of 2007() ------------------------------ S.T. 2206 OF 1999 OF JFCM, PAYYANNUR CRA. 296 OF 2002 OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ADHOC -III,THALASSERY REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.ULAMMA, NEAR SRI DURGAMBIKA TEMPLE, P.O.PAYANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KADASSERI PADMINI, W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIYAN, MADAKKARA,MATTOOL AMSOM, P.O.IRINAVU, VIA CHERUKUNNU. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Crl.R.P. No. 3740 of 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd 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 S.T. No. 2206 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Payyannur 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 CRL. R.P. NO. 3740 of 2007 -:2:- 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 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. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees forty three thousand only) which shall be deposited before the trial court within four months from today failing which she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount as and deposited shall be paid to the first respondent complainant as compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani /true copy/ P.A. to Judge