Criminal Revision Petition No. 893 of 2008 · Kerala High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Mar 2008
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
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), 397, 401
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Judgment
V.RAMKUMAR, J..................................................Crl.R.P. No. 893 of 2008................................................Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008
O R D E RIn this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused inC.C.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Kozhikode, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her 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 Petitionerand the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the RevisionPetitioner 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 Crl.R.P.No.893/2008-:2:-fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant made ademand 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 within15 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 was thus rightly entered against the petitioner.4. What now survives for consideration is the questionas to whether what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of therecent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya rendered on 3-8-2007in Crl. Appeal 1013 of 2007, default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Crl.R.P.No.893/2008-:3:-Sec.
Operative part
357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to paya fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C.The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on there vision petitioner.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.sj
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), 397, 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Mar 2008. 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.