Partly allowed

M.P.Abdul Azeez v. M/S.Malabar Chit Funds (Pvt) Ltd.& Anr.

Kerala HC24 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2983/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court confirmed conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modified sentence to conditional imprisonment, granting exemption if petitioner pays Rs. 2,50,000 compensation within five months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000 compensation within five months to avoid completion of imprisonment sentence; confirmation of conviction maintained.

M.P.Abdul Azeez Vs M/S.Malabar Chit Funds (Pvt) Ltd.& Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 2ND ASWINA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2983 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.477/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC I), KOZHIKODE CC.320/2005 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE.

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

M.P. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. POCKER, MUNDANADATHOPPIL HOUSE, P.O. PALATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

M/S. MALABAR CHIT FUNDS (PVT) LTD.,

¶14

2ND FLOOR, JAYANTHI BUILDING, PALAYAM ROAD, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY M.RASHEED, S/O.ALIKOYA, PANAMKANDI HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI, CALICUT.

¶15

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

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 2983 OF 2007

¶20

................................................ Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 320 of 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').

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner reiterated 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 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.

¶25

What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision Petitioner. Having regard to

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 2983/2007 : 2 :

¶27

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. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty Thousand only) within five 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.

¶28

Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶29

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

¶30

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE .

¶31

M.P.Abdul Azeez v. M/S.Malabar Chit Funds (Pvt) Ltd.& Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Abdul Azeez v. M/S.Malabar Chit Funds (Pvt) Ltd.& Anr.

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

Babu Vs State

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam Vs a.Muhammed

N.v.Narayanan Vs Sathislavods & Another

Shyam Sundaer Vs M.Basheer

Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

P.H.Noushad Vs Prayesh Kumar