IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1897 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.362/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.163/2003 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ MANOHARAN K.V., AGED 49 YEARS, KAMPOLATHU HOUSE, PERUNNERMANGALAM MURI, CHETHY P.O., MARARIKULAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. G. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHAVADIYIL VEEDU, MANCOMPU P.O., KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 1897 of 2006 ................................................ Dated: 16th 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. 163 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Ramankary, 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 finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. The conviction Crl.R..P. No. 1897 of 2006 -:2:- 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. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is in custody from 27-5-2008 onwards. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner is sufficient in addition to a fine of Rs. 3,05,000/-. The fine amount of Rs. 3,05,000/- (Rupees three lakh five thousand only) shall be deposited before the court below within seven months from today. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. 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. The petitioner shall be released from prison unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case. However, his release shall be subject to his liability to pay the above said amount. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Dated this the 16th day of July 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/- Crl.R..P. No. 1897 of 2006 -:3:-