REVISION v. /STATE

V. RAMKUMAR, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````Crl. R.P. No. 2625 OF 2007 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007

O 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.6/2005 on the fileof the C.J.M., Alappuzha challenges the conviction entered and thesentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred 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 theappellant in favour of the complainant on the drawee bank, that thecheque was validly presented to the bank, that it was dishonoured forreasons which fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainantmade a demand for payment by a notice in time in accordance withclause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and that the RevisionPetitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receiptof the statutory notice.

Both the courts have considered and rejectedthe defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the above Crl.R.P.No.2625/07: 2 :finding. The said finding has been recorded on an appreciation of theoral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality orimpropriety in the 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 towhether a proper sentence has been imposed on the RevisionPetitioner. 5.I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed onthe appellant provided he complies with the condition hereinaftermentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the 2ndrespondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357(3)Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within fourmonths from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till therising of the court.