Judgment · High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction butmodifying the sentence as above
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 357(3)
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````Crl. R.P. No. 2727 OF 2007 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 19th 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.1554/2002 onthe file of the J.F.C.M.-I, Kollam, challenges the conviction entered andthe 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 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.2727/07: 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 the2nd respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) withinfour months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment tillthe rising of the court.
Operative part
If on the other hand, the revision petitionercommits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall undergosimple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, ifany, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to therevision petitioner. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction butmodifying the sentence as above. (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)aks
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction butmodifying the sentence as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 357(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Jul 2007. 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.