P R RAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.No.753/2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, 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'). The cheque amount was Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only).

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) WHAT now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand 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 five months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned periodhe shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the convictionentered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.