Partly allowed

Philo Jojo v. M/S.Sri.Gokulam Chits & Finance Co.

Kerala HC20 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3305/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to Rs. 48,000 compensation or imprisonment for three months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to Rs. 48,000 compensation within three months or three months imprisonment.

Philo Jojo Vs M/S.Sri.Gokulam Chits & Finance Co. — 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 20TH JULY 2007 / 29TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3305 of 2003()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.617/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II) , ERNAKULAM CC.528/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT IN CAR/ACCUSED IN CC:

¶8

¶9

PHILO JOJO, W/O. JOJO PAUL, AGED 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO.G-225, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 016.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN CRA & COMPLAINANT IN CC:

¶12

¶13

M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.

¶14

(P) LTD.,REGD.OFFICE AT 26,MUTHUGRAMANI STREET, MYLAPORE,MADRAS-4,REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,K.M.LOHITHAKSHAN,S/O.K.M.KRISHNAN,BUSINESS MANAGER,SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.(P)LTD., 39/2041,III FLOOR,SHERIME BLDGS.JOS JN.,ERNAKULAM.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 3305 of 2003

¶20

................................................ Dated: 20-07-2007

¶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.528 of 1999 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, 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. 3305 of 2003 -: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. 48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand) within three 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/-

Philo Jojo v. M/S.Sri.Gokulam Chits & Finance Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philo Jojo v. M/S.Sri.Gokulam Chits & Finance Co.

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

Marthanda Varma Vs Trichur Jewellery

K.P.Unnikrishnan Vs T.Rajan and Another

The Mutual Aid Bankers & P.L.Navis Vs Joseph Gomes

Sai Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

M.Musthafa Vs Food Inspector

Anitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala