IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3626 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.313/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM ST.1406/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SUNNY XAVIOUR, MUNDAPLACKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., VELLILAPPALLY, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREERAM INVESTMENT LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR NO.4, LADY DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPPORE, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY V.K.SUNILKUMAR, BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SMT.MOLLY KOSHY FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1-3-2010 THE COURT ON 01/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ........................................................ Crl.R.P. No. 3626 of 2009 ......................................................... Dated, this the Ist day of March, 2010 O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. 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. 1406 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,I Kottayam 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. 1,05,605/- The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,05,605/-. 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 3626 OF 2009 -:2:- 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 recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. This Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction will be loath to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below concurrently. 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 adequacy or otherwise of the sentence to be imposed on the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent complainant concedes that the complainant has already received Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only). The said submission is recorded. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is altered to fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. It shall be paid as compensation for the 2nd respondent/complainant who admits receipt of the same. Since the compensation has already been received by the 2nd respondent/complainant, I do not impose any default sentence. 6. The petitioner shall be released from prison forthwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in CRL.R.P. NO. 3626 OF 2009 -:3:- connection with any other case. 7. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Registry to communicate this order today itself. Dated this the Ist day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani