Allowed

E.Chandrika v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3192/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While finding no error in the conviction, the court modified the sentence, allowing the petitioner to compound the offence by paying Rs. 1,20,000 within five months.

What did the court decide?

Modifying the sentence to allow the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,20,000 within five months to avoid imprisonment except during default.

E.Chandrika 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 15TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3192 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.242/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.85/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

E.CHANDRIKA, MINDER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL ARCHIEVES, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SREEKUMAR, VIDHYA HOUSE, TC 23/1276, MELARANOOR, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 3192 of 2007

¶20

................................................ Dated: 6-09-2007

¶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 S.T. No. 85 of 2003 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthapuram 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 the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, however,

¶26

Crl.R.P. 3192 of 2007 -:2:-

¶27

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. 1,20, 000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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

ani/-

E.Chandrika v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Chandrika 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

N.Madhavan Kutty Menon Vs G.S.Jayamohanan Nair

T.S.Surendrakumar Vs K.Vijayam

T.S. Surendrakumar Vs K. Vijayan

The Reetha Anto Vs Romeo Jacob

C.K.Menon Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.P.Rajan Vs M.C.Moideen Koya