IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2344 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.254/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.1251/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ BABY ALEX, PROPRIETOR, BELGIUM GLASS HOUSE, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MATHEW K CHERIAN, S/O.LATE K.C.CHERIAN, KOSAMATTOM HOUSE, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No.2344 of 2008 ................................................ Dated this the 14 th day of July, 2008 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.1251 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Kottayam (Mobile), 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 evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the Crl.R.P.No.2344/2008 -:2:- 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 what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is altered to one of fine only being the cheque amount of Rs.80,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant admitted that the complainant has received the fine amount of Rs.80,000/-. If so, nothing more survives. The revision petitioner need not undergo any imprisonment including imprisonment till the rising of the court for the said conviction. This Revision is disposed of as above Dated this the 14 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj