Partly allowed

G. Raju v. Yohannan

Kerala HC25 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1549/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to allow the accused three months to pay Rs. 27,500 as compensation to avoid one month of default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was confirmed. The sentence was modified to allow the petitioner three months to pay Rs. 27,500 compensation to avoid imprisonment; thereafter, he must undergo imprisonment until compen

G. Raju Vs Yohannan — 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 25TH JULY 2007 / 3RD SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1549 of 2006()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.6/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CC.655/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

G. RAJU, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, NEERAIKODU JUNCTION, AYOOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED

¶11

SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶12

SRI.VIKANTH K.PUTHUMANA

¶13

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶14

¶15

YOHANNAN, S/O. CHACKO, THONNALLOOR PUTHEN VEEDU, POTHANPARA, MOONGODE MURI, ALAYAMON VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶16

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

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SVIAKUMAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

.................................................

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 1549 of 2007

¶23

................................................ Dated:25-07-2007

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 655 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Punalur, 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').

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner reiterated the contentions in support of the Revision. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the 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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

Crl.r.P. 1549 of 2007

¶31

Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the first respondent complainant by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs. 27,500/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred only) within three months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the court. If the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.

¶32

An amount of Rs. 12500/- lying in deposit shall be refunded to the complainant. Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶33

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

¶34

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

ani/-

G. Raju v. Yohannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Raju v. Yohannan

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

K.P.Ahammed Kutty Vs P.M.Chacko

John Solomon Vs K.Sreekumar

Vinod Vs Peter

C.J.Edward Vs State of Kerala

Anantha Lakshmi Vs Malathy & State

P.M.Sudheer Vs M.P.Suresh