IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 490 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.53/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.199/2000 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- T.VISWADEVAN, CHALIL VEEDU, KARIMPALLOOR PUTHENKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. S.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SARASWATHY VILLAGE, ESI JUNCTION, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = Crl.R.P. No.490 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 9 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 C.C.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur, 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.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is also Rs.70,000/-. 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 recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary Crl.R..P. No. 490/2009 -:2:- 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. The petitioner is already in custody now for about 20 days. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner will suffice towards the substantive sentence. The petitioner is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only). The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C to the complainant. 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 five months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer 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 9th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj