Partly allowed

P.C.Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3116/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the challenge to the conviction for cheating by a cheque issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and modified the sentence to allow a suspended sentence conditioned upon payment of compensation within five months.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was confirmed. The sentence was modified to a suspended imprisonment upon payment of Rs. 90,000 as compensation within five months, else imprisonment for three months.

P.C.Thomas Vs State of Kerala — 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 17TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 26TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3116 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.NO. 197 OF 2005 0OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL) KOTTAYAM IN C.C. NO. 64 OF 2002 OF THE J.F.C.M.-I, KANJIRAPPILLY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

P.C. THOMAS,

¶10

PULICKAL PRAVIL, CHENGALAM, PALLICKATHODU.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

A.V. THOMAS,

¶16

ALUNKALTHAZHEVEEDU, CHENGALAM, PALLICKATHODU.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.R.P. No. 3116 OF 2007

¶22

................................................ Dated: 17-09-2007

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.64 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Kanjirappally 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').

¶25

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

¶26

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 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.

¶27

Crl.R.P. 3116 of 2007

¶28

-:2:-

¶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. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety 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.

¶30

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

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani/-

P.C.Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Thomas v. State of Kerala

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

Praveen Kumar Vs Suraya Zaheer

George & Another Vs State of Kerala

Manomohan Alias Manikutty Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Sundaran Rajendran Vs State of Kerala and Another