Partly allowed

Nisha Agencies, Rep. by Its Proprietor v. M/S.Nest Condiments Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2144/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court confirmed the conviction, finding no error in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence. The court modified the sentence, allowing the accused imprisonment till the rising of the court if he pays Rs. 20,000 as compensation within two months, otherwise si

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified: imprisonment till rising of court if Rs. 20,000 compensation paid within two months; otherwise simple imprisonment for three months.

Nisha Agencies, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs M/S.Nest… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2007 / 12TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2144 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.826/2003 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.339/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

NISHA AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MOIDEEN M.P., MANGATTU, VALALA P.O., 14TH MILE, ADIMALI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

M/S.NEST CONDIMENTS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SHAJI KOSHY, S/O.KOSHY JACOB, XXXV/952, PUTHENPURACKAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 2144 of 2007

¶19

................................................ Dated: 03-07-2007

¶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 C.C. No.339 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Aluva, 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 appellant 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. 2144 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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) within two 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 under go simple imprisonment for three months.

¶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.No. 2144 of 2007

¶32

-:3:-

¶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/-

Nisha Agencies, Rep. by Its Proprietor v. M/S.Nest Condiments Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Agencies, Rep. by Its Proprietor v. M/S.Nest Condiments Ltd.

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

Simon Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Jose Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Mohanan Pillai Vs a.John

A.C.Anwar Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala