Partly allowed

R.Balakrishnan v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Kerala HC13 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1906/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the criminal revision petition confirming the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence to conditional imprisonment contingent on payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 60,000 compensation to first respondent within four months or undergo simple imprisonment of three months; conviction confirmed.

R.Balakrishnan Vs Kerala Financial Corporation 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 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1906 of 2007() -----------------------------CRA.533/2004 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.506/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD ....................

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.RAMANKUTTY, KUNDUTHODI HOUSE, PADOOR P.O., KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE SURYA COMPLED, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,

¶12

(RECOVERY),V.AUGASTHIA LINGOM, S/O.K.A.VELLAYUDHAN

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 1906 of 2007

¶19

................................................ Dated: 13-07-2007

¶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 S.T. No.506 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Palakkad 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. 1906 of 2007 -:2:-

¶25

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.

¶26

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. 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. 60,000- ( Rupees sixty thousand only) within four 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.

¶27

Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

ani

¶31

Crl.R.P. 1906 of 2007 -:3:-

¶32

ani/-

¶33

I am of the view that as against the sentence of........... imposed on the revision petitioner, following sentence will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for his conviction under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to...............

¶34

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

¶35

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶36

ani/-

R.Balakrishnan v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balakrishnan v. Kerala Financial Corporation 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

Yerika Vs Ramachandran & Another

K.H.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Chithira Potteries and Another Vs T.v.Sunny and Another

Devarajan Vs Jose Paul

Rajendra Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Abraham Mathew Vs State of Kerala