Partly allowed

Kumarapuram Sasi v. P.G.Rajankutty

Kerala HC7 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/291/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision challenging the conviction for cheque offence under Sec. 138 NI Act, finding no error. It modified the sentence, granting further release on payment of Rs. 25,000 compensation within four months or up to three months simple imprisonment on default.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified: imprisonment suspended if ₹25,000 compensation paid by 4th month; otherwise 3 months simple imprisonment.

Kumarapuram Sasi Vs P.G.Rajankutty — 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 7TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 16TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 291 of 2004(B)

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.41/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.75/1995 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

KUMARAPURAM SASI, RAMAMANDIRAM, T.C.X/527, POTHUYANAM LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

P.G.RAJANKUTTY, IDAKKULATHU HOUSE, KADAMURUTTY, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, TANNY TALUK.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARGHESE

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

.................................................

¶20

Crl.R.P. No. 291 of 2004

¶21

................................................ Dated: 7-09-2007

¶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 S.T. No. 75 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Pathanamthitta 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').

¶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 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

¶26

Crl.R.P. 291 of 2004

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

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.

¶29

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. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) (giving credit to the sum of Rs. 20,000/- pursuant to orders of this court and which amount can be withdrawn by the first respondent/complainant) 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, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.

¶30

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

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani/-

¶33

Crl.R.P. 291 of 2004 -:3:-

Kumarapuram Sasi v. P.G.Rajankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarapuram Sasi v. P.G.Rajankutty

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

The Reetha Anto Vs Romeo Jacob

C.K.Menon Vs State of Kerala and Others

E.Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

K.Premaleela Vs a.G.Skaria

Xavier Thomas Vs Kunjumol

Mohana Kurup Vs State of Kerala & Another