Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Kerala HC13 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2441/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a criminal revision petition authored. The court found no error in the conviction of the appellant for cheque bounce under Section 138 of NI Act. However, it modified the sentence conditional on payment of compensation to disclose.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of conviction; modification of sentence to imprisonment till rising of court conditioned on payment of Rs. 2,35,500 as compensation within four months.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat 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

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2441 of 2007(A)

¶6

------------------------------CRA.446/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE CC.258/2005 of SPECIAL JFCM(MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, "PULAPLAYIL" HOUSE, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.MINI.R.MENON SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

PARASMAL LUNAVAT, S/O.PADAMCHAND JAIN, PROPRIETOR, DOLPHIN FINANCIAL SERVICES, E.K.P. COMPLEX, OPP.PAICO, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, K.GIREESHAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, "GREENS",NEAR WATER TANK,PUTHIYARA PO,KOZHIKODE.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 2441 OF 2007

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 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.258/2005 on the file of the Special Judicial first Class Magistrate(Marad Cases), Kozhikode, 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.2441/07

¶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.2,35,500/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty five thousand five hundred only) within four 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

Rajendra Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat 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

R.Balakrishnan Vs Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Abraham Mathew Vs State of Kerala