Partly allowed

M.L.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2240/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Cr.P.C. 397 and 401 against a conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court confirmed the conviction. The Court modified the sentence to conditional imprisonment, requiring the appellant to pay Rs. 85,000 as compensation to the complainant within three months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court on payment of Rs. 85,000 compensation within three months; default attracts three months' simple imprisonment.

M.L.Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2007 / 20TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2240 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.618/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.243/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

M.L. JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.LOUIS, MADATHILPARAMBILCHIRA, THYCATTUSSERY PO CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

BINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, BINDU BHAVANAM, THYCATTUSSERY NADUBHAGOM MURI, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl. R.P. No. 2240 OF 2007 D

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.243/2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-II, Cherthala 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').

¶23

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.2240/07

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

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.

¶28

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 appellant provided he complies with the condition hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the 2^nd respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty 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.

¶29

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

¶30

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶31

aks

M.L.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.L.Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

C.Abooty Vs O.Mommad Koya

P.K.Vasavan Vs Chakkalamannil Chitty Fund

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Kairali Markeeting & Processing Co.Op.So Vs Thomas Chandy

Salamma Mathew Vs State of Kerala

M.Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala