Partly allowed

P.K.Raveendran v. T.a.Sulaiman

Kerala HC19 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1157/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition confirming the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The court modified the sentence to be in default only if the petitioner paid Rs. 45,000 compensation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Updated the sentence to conditional imprisonment: one month's jail or imprisonment till the rising of the court if compensation of Rs 45,000 is paid within two months, else three months simple impriso

P.K.Raveendran Vs T.a.Sulaiman — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 28TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1157 of 2006()

¶6

¶7

CC.533/00 OF JFCM, CHAVAKKAD CRA.537/03 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

P.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, PALLIKADAVATH HOUSE, KUNDALIYUR P.O., ETHAI, EAST VADANAPILLY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶13

¶14

T.A.SULAIMAN, S/O.ALI, THARAYIL HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK.

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl. R.P. No. 1157 OF 2006 D

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.533/2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Chavakkad 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').

¶23

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

¶24

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 revision 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 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 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

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.1157/06

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

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.

¶28

What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision Petitioner. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner provided he complies with the condition hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the 1^st respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) within two months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.

¶29

This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above.

¶30

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶31

aks

P.K.Raveendran v. T.a.Sulaiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Raveendran v. T.a.Sulaiman

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

Bhaskaran,S/O.Sankaran Vs State of Kerala

Kulathupady Achutty @ Balan Vs State of Kerala

Karunakaran Vs Mohanan

Safarullakhan Vs P.H.Basheer

P.D.Scaria Vs T.K.Paul and Another

Venu Madhavan Vs a.K.Balakrishnan Nair and Another