Partly allowed

K.Sureshbabu v. T.N.Abdulsalam

Kerala HC14 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3345/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a Criminal Revision challenging conviction and sentence. Court confirmed conviction under Sec. 138 NI Act but modified sentence to allow payment of compensation within five months in lieu of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment modified to be suspended contingent on payment of Rs. 47,000 compensation within five months; otherwise three months simple imprisonment for default.

K.Sureshbabu Vs T.N.Abdulsalam — 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 14TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 23RD BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3345 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.591/2006 of OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE

¶7

CC.559/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

K.SURESHBABU, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, PATHYERITHAZHA HOUSE, KURUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶13

¶14

T.N.ABDULSALAM, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, THAZHE NEDULI HOUSE, THONDAPARA P.O., PERAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 3345 of 2007

¶20

................................................ Dated: 14-09-2007

¶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 C.C. No.559 of 2005 the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Perambra 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 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

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. The conviction was thus rightly entered against the petitioner.

¶27

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. 47,000/- (Rupees forty seven 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/-

K.Sureshbabu v. T.N.Abdulsalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sureshbabu v. T.N.Abdulsalam

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

Jyothirani Vs Kallaramkettil Sathyan

P.K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

Paul Vs State of Kerala

Yousuf Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Sajeendran Vs S.I.of Police,Thalassery