Criminal Revision Petition No. 3448 of 2007 · Kerala High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Sep 2007
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
Outcome
Disposed of
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying thesentence as above
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 357(3), 397, 401
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Judgment
V.RAMKUMAR, J..................................................Crl.R.P. No. 3448 of 2007................................................Dated: 25th day of September, 2007
O R D E RIn this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 1443 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Pathanamthitta challenges the conviction entered and the 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 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner 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 fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant made a demand for payment bya 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 within 15 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 question as to whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision Petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, however, CRL. R.P. NO. 3448/2007: 2:inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the first respondent complainant by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum ofRs. 19,300/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred only) within three months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till therising of the court.
Operative part
If the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.5. Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the petitioner. This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv
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 but modifying thesentence as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 357(3), 397, 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Sep 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.