Partly allowed

Smt.Suma Mathew v. George Thomas

Kerala HC10 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1254/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld conviction under Nielsen Instruments Act for cheque dishonour but modified sentence to imprisonment till rising of court if petitioner pays Rs. 2,25,000 compensation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court if Rs. 2,25,000 paid within four months; otherwise three months' default sentence.

Smt.Suma Mathew Vs George Thomas — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 19TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1254 of 2005()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.53/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.161/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

SMT.SUMA MATHEW, W/O.SRI.L.K.JOHNSON, PROPRIETRIX, A.J.CASHEW IMPORTERS & EXPORTERS, SIBI VILLA, ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

GEORGE THOMAS, THEKKEPUTHUVELIL HOUSE, KONNI.P.O.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 1254 OF 2005 B ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2007

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.161/99 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-II, Pathanamthitta challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1254/05

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

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.

¶27

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 she 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.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand only) [giving credit to the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders of this court and which amount can be withdrawn by the 1^st respondent complainant] within four months from today, then she

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1254/05

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

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, she 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.

¶31

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

¶32

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶33

aks

Smt.Suma Mathew v. George Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Suma Mathew v. George Thomas

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

Kumarapuram Sasi Vs P.G.Rajankutty

K.Premaleela Vs a.G.Skaria

Xavier Thomas Vs Kunjumol

P.K.Ashraf Ahammed Vs M.T.Adam

Rani George Vs Thressiakutty

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala