Judgment · High Court · 2007

V. RAMKUMAR, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````Crl. R.P. No. 1761 OF 2007 A````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007O R D E RIn this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.1288/1998 onthe file of the J.F.C.M., Karunagappally challenges the convictionentered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishableunder Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act').2.I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner andthe learned Public Prosecutor.3.The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitionerre-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. The courts belowhave concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by therevision petitioner in favour of the complainant on the drawee bank, thatthe cheque was validly presented to the bank, that it was dishonouredfor reasons which fall under Section 138 of the Act, that thecomplainant made a demand for payment by a notice in time inaccordance with clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act andthat the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts haveconsidered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitionerwhile entering the above finding. The said finding has been recorded Crl.R.P.No.1761/07: 2 :on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not findany error, illegality or impropriety in the finding so recorded concurrentlyby the courts below. The conviction was thus rightly entered againstthe petitioner.4.What now survives for consideration is the question as towhether a proper sentence has been imposed on the RevisionPetitioner. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed onthe revision petitioner provided he complies with the conditionhereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the1st respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only)within three months from today, then he need to undergo onlyimprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revisionpetitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shallundergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of defaultsentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to theorders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded tothe revision petitioner. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction butmodifying the sentence as above.(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)aks