Allowed

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam v. a.Muhammed

Kerala HC20 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/329/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to conditional imprisonment contingent upon payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court if compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- paid within five months; default attracts three months simple imprisonment.

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam Vs a.Muhammed — 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 20TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 29TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 329 of 2002()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.196/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA ST.272/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM,VII/326,

¶10

DARUSALAM ROAD,KOCHI-2

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

A.MUHAMMED,MOOLAYIL VEEDU,NERKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-5.

¶15

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

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

¶17

SRI.S.JAMAL

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 329 OF 2002

¶22

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

¶23

Dated: 20-09-2007

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 272 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Ambalappuzha 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').

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Crl. R.P. 329 of 2007 -:2:-

¶29

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.

¶30

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. 1,85,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty five thousand only) (giving credit to a sum of Rs. 59,500/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand five hundred only) already deposited before the trial court pursuant to orders of this Court and which amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent) 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.

¶31

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

¶32

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE .

¶33

ani/-

¶34

Crl. R.P. 329 of 2007

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 329 OF 2002 ................................................ Dated: 20-09-2007

¶37

O R D E R

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam v. a.Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam v. a.Muhammed

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

Safarullakhan Vs P.H.Basheer

P.D.Scaria Vs T.K.Paul and Another

P.K.Raveendran Vs T.a.Sulaiman

Babu Vs State

N.v.Narayanan Vs Sathislavods & Another

Tripureswary Amma Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Addl.P.Prosecutor