IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 673 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.501/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT -I, TRIVANDRUM CC.498/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARKLIST CASES), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------ B.REGHURAMAN, ASST.MACHINE OPERATOR, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. D.KISHORE MS. MEERA GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.INDIRA DEVI, KALIYAVEETTIL POIKA-PUTHENVEEDU, ALINERA, THUNDATHIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 673 of 2009 ................................................ Dated, this the 24th 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 C.C. No.498 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -V (Special Court for Marklist Cases), Thiruvananthapuram 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.52,800/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs. 53,000/-. 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 Crl.R..P. No. 673/2009 -:2:- 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 recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the evidence 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that he deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the conviction recorded against him especially since he is a government servant. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the courts below. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act, the sentence imposed on Crl.R..P. No. 673/2009 -:3:- him by the courts below is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is given five months time from today to pay the compensation to the complainant failing which he shall undergo 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 petitioner. Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv