Kerala HC dismissed criminal revision appeal in cheque bounce case, upheld conviction under Sec 138 NI Act but reduced sentence contingent on payment of Rs 30,000 compensation.
Conviction confirmed; Sentence modified to include conditional release upon payment of Rs 30,000 compensation within five months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 21ST BHADRA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2183 of 2004(C)
------------------------------ST.4588/00 OF JFCM-II, THRISSUR CRA.466/03 OF I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K. VENUGOPAL, S/O. BHASKARA MENON, MANGALALAYAM, POTTAYIL LANE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE:
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Crl. R.P. No. 2183 OF 2004 C
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No.4588/00 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-II, Thrissur 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').
Crl.R.P.No.2183/04
: 2 :
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.
Crl.R.P.No.2183/04
: 3 :
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.
This Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was error, illegality or impropriety in the findings on conviction.
Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner was proper.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K. VENUGOPAL
P.P. GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
