Partly allowed

P.M.Chacko v. B.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Another

Kerala HC10 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1761/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal revision dismissed the challenge to conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence, allowing it until court rising upon payment of Rs. 65,000 as compensations within three months, otherwise imposing three months simple imprisonment.(

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 65,000 within 3 months; upon payment, sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of court; default attracts 3 months simple imprisonment.

P.M.Chacko Vs B.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2007 / 19TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1761 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.288/03 OF FIRST ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.NO.1288/98 OF JFCM, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

P.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHUNNI, PULLAMPALLIMAKKU WARD I, PANMANA, KOLLAKA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

B.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, CHAROOR, PADEETTATHIL, NEELIKULAM, VAVAKKAVU K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY C.P.VINAYAKAN, MINEETH HOUSE, KOLLAKA P.O KARUNAGAPPALLY AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 1761 OF 2007 A

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 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.1288/1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Karunagappally 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.1761/07

¶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.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) 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. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶30

aks

P.M.Chacko v. B.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Chacko v. B.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Another

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

St.Mary'S Oil Industries Vs K.N.Syed Mohammed

Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs Inspector of Police,Cbi/Scb,Chennai

M.a.Ummer Vs K.U.Shaji

G.Balakrishnan Vs K.Harikumar

V.P.Moideen Koya Vs K.Suresh