Partly allowed

V.Purushothaman v. George Kurian

Kerala HC4 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2501/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque bounce under Section 138 NI Act. The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, providing the appellant an option to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to avoid imprisonment. Relief granted upon payment completion.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified: pay Rs. 2,00,000 compensation within four months to avoid imprisonment; otherwise original sentence revives.

V.Purushothaman Vs George Kurian — 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 4TH JULY 2007 / 13TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2501 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------C.C. NO. 407 OF 2003 OF J.F.C.M., AMBALAPPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.VASU, AGED 51 YEARS, THUNDIYIL VEEDU, KUNNANKARY P.O., KIDANGARA, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.ESAKKI ACHARI

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

¶13

GEORGE KURIAN, PEEDIKAYIL, EDATHUA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 2501 of 2007

¶19

................................................ Dated: 04-07-2007

¶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.407 0of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Ambalappuzha 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

¶24

Crl.R.P. No. 2501 of 2007 -:2:-

¶25

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.

¶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. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs 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, the sentence, imposed on him by the trial court shall revive.

¶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

Crl.R.P. No. 2501 of 2007

¶31

-: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/-

V.Purushothaman v. George Kurian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Purushothaman v. George Kurian

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

N.K.Mohanan Pillai Vs a.John

A.C.Anwar Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs Rdo,Trichur

P.Vijayan IPS Vs State of Kerala and Others

O.Muhammed Koya Vs Shajir Arafat