Criminal Revision Petition No. 804 of 2009 · Kerala High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 357(1), 357(3), 401
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Crl.R.P. No. 804 of 2009=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009
O R D E RIn this revision petition filed under Section 397 readwith Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused inS.T.No.289/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally challenges the conviction entered and thesentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.2,00,000/-The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court isRs.2,00,000/-2.I heard the learned counsel for the RevisionPetitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the RevisionPetitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that thecheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of thecomplainant, that the complainant had validly complied withclauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act andthat the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the paymentwithin 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice.
Both thecourts have considered the matter and rejected the defence set CRL.R.P 804/09 -2-up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. Thesaid conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation ofthe oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recordedconcurrently by the courts below and the same is herebyconfirmed.5. What now survives for consideration is the legality ofthe sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light ofa recent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty V. P. Abdullakoya (2008 (1) KLT 851) defaultsentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order forcompensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revisionpetitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
Operative part
2,00,000/- (Rupeestwo lakhs). The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permittedeither to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below ordirectly pay the compensation to the complainant within sevenmonths from today and produce a memo to that effect before thetrial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or CRL.R.P 804/09 -3-pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shallsuffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of defaultsentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.mn.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 357(1), 357(3), 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 04 Mar 2009. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.