Allowed

Iqbal v. Gopi Pillai

Kerala HC6 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/111/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the court reviewed the conviction of the respondent for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to till the rising of the court and directed payment of the full cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Reduced imprisonment to till rising of the court; directed payment of Rs. 7,250 as compensation

Iqbal Vs Gopi Pillai — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 111 of 1998()

¶5

----------------------------CRA.24/1995 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.325/1992 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------

¶7

IQBAL, S/O.SYED MOHAMMED, THAIVALAPPIL, VELATHAKADAVU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

------------1. GOPI PILLAI ALIAS GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.APPU PILLAI, PULIYAMPULLY, SECRETARY, SREE NARAYANA SADU PARIPALANA SAMAJAM, CHATHEDATH PARAMB, LOKAMALISWARAM, KODUNGALLUR.

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶15

Crl. R.P. No. 111 OF 1998

¶16

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2007

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The revision petitioner prosecuted the 1^st respondent herein for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, consequent on the dishonour of Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.9.92 for a sum of Rs.7,250/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred and fifty only). Eventhough he raised a defence that his prosecution was bad without the prosecution of the firm of which he was a Partner, the courts below have concurrently repelled the said defence and convicted him for the said offence. But the sentence imposed on the 1^st respondent was one of simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which was directed to be paid as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C.

¶19

The main ground which is urged in support of this revision by the complainant is that the courts below should have directed the cheque amount of Rs.7,250/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred and fifty only) as compensation instead of limiting the same to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.111/98

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

way of fine. I see some force in the said submissions. For the 1^st respondent accused also, I do not think that penal servitude by way of incarceration beyond the rising of the court is warranted. Accordingly, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for three months to imprisonment till the rising of the court and direct the 1^st respondent accused to pay to the revision petitioner/ complainant the cheque amount of Rs.7,250/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred and fifty only) by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within two months from today, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

¶23

This revision is allowed in part as above.

¶24

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks

Crl.R.P.No.111/98

: 3 :

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

Crl. R.P. No. 111 OF 1998 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

6^th day of August, 2007

Iqbal v. Gopi Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal v. Gopi Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danesh Vs State of Kerala

Surendran M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo Vs Asst.Collector of Customs

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Assam Brook Export Ltd.

Narayanan Vs T.E.Vidyadharan

Illikkal Joseph Vs T.Pathu