Partly allowed

K.P.Chellappan v. John J.Pakalommattom

Kerala HC23 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1722/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition against a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, the Court modified the sentence, directing that if the accused pays Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation within three months, he will serve imprisonment till the rising of the court; otherwise, he faces a three-month default sentence.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment till the rising of the court upon payment of Rs. 1,50,000 compensation within three months; otherwise, three months' default imprisonment.

K.P.Chellappan Vs John J.Pakalommattom — 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 23RD JULY 2007 / 1ST SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1722 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.283/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA CC.349/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

K.P.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 74, S/O.PADMANABHAN,KOLANGARA HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O.,THODUPUZHA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

JOHN J.PAKALOMMATTOM @ JAMES, PAKALOMATTOM HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 1722 OF 2007

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 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.349/1998 on the file of the CJM, Thodupuzha, 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').

¶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 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

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1722/07

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

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 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.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) [giving credit to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) already 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 three 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.

¶28

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

¶29

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶30

aks

K.P.Chellappan v. John J.Pakalommattom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Chellappan v. John J.Pakalommattom

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

Sai Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

M.Musthafa Vs Food Inspector

Anitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Kishore Kumar Vs P.K.Unnikrishnan

K.Vijayan Vs M.v.Siva Kumar

Rajendraprasad Vs State of Kerala