Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Illikkal Joseph Vs T.Pathu — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

Home
Kerala HC
2007
Illikkal Joseph Vs T.PathuIllikkal Joseph v. T.Pathu

Partly allowed

Illikkal Joseph v. T.Pathu

Kerala HC6 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2536/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Noocrd

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment sentence modified upon deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2536 of 2005()

-----------------------------C.C. 600/99 OF J.F.C.M. VADAKARA CRA.677 OF 2001 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

ILLIKKAL JOSEPH, S/O. KURUVILA, P.T. CHACKO NAGAR, KAVILUMPARA AMSOM DESOM.

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

T. PATHU, W/O. LATE AMMED HAJI, KOIPPURATH HOUSE, KURINHALIYADE P.O., VADAKARA TALUK.

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether to confirm the conviction for cheque dishonour entered by courts below.
2.
Whether the deposition of the cheque amount prior to sentence warrants modification of the sentence.

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

CrPC397357
Negotiable Instruments Act138138

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
ILLIKKAL JOSEPH
respondent
T. PATHU
respondent
T. MOOSA
respondent
STATE OF KERALA

Coram

AI extract

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 6 Aug 2007 · August
Registered: 12 Oct 2005
Case no.: Crl.Rev.Pet/2536/2005

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V.ramkumar

Danesh Vs State of Kerala
3 Aug 2007
Surendran M.K. Vs State of Kerala
3 Aug 2007
Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo Vs Asst.Collector of Customs
3 Aug 2007
Iqbal Vs Gopi Pillai
6 Aug 2007

Cite this judgement

Illikkal Joseph v. T.Pathu, Crl.Rev.Pet/2536/2005 (KL), decided on 6 August 2007.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

CrPC397 · 357
Negotiable Instruments Act138 · 138

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

V. RAMKUMAR

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment sentence modified upon deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.

Issue for consideration

Whether to confirm the conviction for cheque dishonour entered by courts below. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition against conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act allowed in part. Conviction confirmed but imprisonment sentence modified upon deposit of the cheque amount as compensation before the trial court.

A compact analysis

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.

T. MOOSA, S/O. AMMED HAJI, KOYIPPURATH HOUSE, P.O. KURINHALIYODE, VADAKARA TALUK.

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

BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

Crl.R.P. No. 2536 of 2005

Dated: 6-8-2007

ORDER

This Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.600 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Vadakara, 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').

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

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 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

Crl.R.P. 2536 of 2007 -:2:-

rightly entered against the petitioner.

Pursuant to the direction of this court, the revision petitioner has deposited the entire cheque amount of Rs. 1,50,000/(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) before the trial court and the said amount has been released to the first respondent with the consent of the 2^nd respondent both of whom are the legal representatives of the complainant deceased Ammed Haji. The said amount shall be treated as compensation paid under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

What remains is the question of undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court for which purpose the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 22-8-2007.

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

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

ani/-

V. RAMKUMAR

CNR

KLHC010218822005

Topic

Cheque Dishonour

Bench

Disposal

DISPOSED OF

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Assam Brook Export Ltd.

6 Aug 2007

Narayanan Vs T.E.Vidyadharan

6 Aug 2007