Partly allowed

Yerika v. Ramachandran & Another

Kerala HC12 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2634/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal revision petition by confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but modified the sentence to conditional imprisonment contingent upon payment of compensation to the complainant within four months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court conditioned on payment of Rs. 3,50,000 compensation within four months; default attracts three months simple imprisonment.

Yerika Vs Ramachandran & 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2007 / 21ST ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2634 of 2007(E)

¶6

------------------------------CRA.401/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.514/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

YERIKA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O MARUTHI SAIT, PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, VEGETABLE MARKET, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL

¶11

SRI.R.GOPAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶13

¶14

RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, AYIAM, KANNAMPALLIBHAGHOM MURI, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM.

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

SRI.R.REJI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl. R.P. No. 2634 OF 2007

¶21

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2007

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.514/2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Kayamkulam challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.2634/07

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

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.

¶29

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 she 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.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) within four months from today, then she 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, she 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.

¶30

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

¶31

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶32

aks

Yerika v. Ramachandran & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerika v. Ramachandran & 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

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

Salamma Mathew Vs State of Kerala

M.L.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.H.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Chithira Potteries and Another Vs T.v.Sunny and Another

Saju Vs State of Kerala