Criminal Revision Petition No. 2204 of 2008 · Kerala High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
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. 2204 of 2008=======================Dated, this the 9th day of July,2008.
O R D E RIn this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No. 627 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha challenges the conviction entered and the sentencepassed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred toas '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 inquestion was drawn by the petitioner in favour of thecomplainant on the drawee bank, that the cheque was validlypresented to the bank, that it was dishonoured for reasons whichfall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant made ademand for payment by a notice in time in accordance withclause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and that the Crl.R.P. No.
2204/2008-:2:-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 revisionpetitioner while entering the above finding. The said finding hasbeen recorded on an appreciation of the oral and documentaryevidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in thefinding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Theconviction 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 imposedon the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentenceimposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recentdecision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkuttyv. E.P. Abdullakoya (2008(1) KLT 851) rendered on 3-8-2007 in Crl.
Operative part
Appeal 1013 of 2007, default sentence cannot beimposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay Crl.R.P. No. 2204/2008-:3:-a fine of Rs.78,000/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand only) {aftergiving credit to the sum of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the revisionpetitioner before the trial court and which amount shall bepermitted to be withdrawn by the 1st respondent/complainant}.The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to depositthe said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay thecompensation to the complainant within six months from todayand produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in caseof direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amountwithin the aforementioned period, he shall suffer simpleimprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner. Dated, this the 9th day of July,2008.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv
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 09 Jul 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.