Allowed

Mrs. Sudha v. K.Prasad

Kerala HC17 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3414/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, making it stayable upon payment of compensation within four months, otherwise imposing simple imprisonment as a default. The text contains procedural errors at the end.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to allow imprisonment on failure to pay Rs. 74,000/- compensation within four months.

Mrs. Sudha Vs K.Prasad — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2007 / 26TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3414 of 2006()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.379/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.158/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

MRS.SUDHA, T.C.13/1393, JOB LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶12

¶13

K.PRASAD, T.C.34/1129, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM, NEAR AIRPORT, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 3414 OF 2006

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2007

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.158/2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-IV(Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶22

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

¶23

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 revision 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

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.3414/06

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

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

What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether a proper sentence has been imposed on the Revision Petitioner. I am, however, inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner provided she complies with the condition hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to the 1^st respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.74,000/- (Rupees seventy four thousand only) within four months from today, then she need to undergo only imprisonment till the rising of the court. If on the other hand, the revision petitioner commits default in making the payment as aforesaid, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶30

aks

Mrs. Sudha v. K.Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sudha v. K.Prasad

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

M.K.Kumaran Vs P.v.Varghese

Tomcy Michael Vs T.C.Mathew

Narayanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Stephen Rozario Vs v.Surendran Pillai M.L.A & Others

E.K.Haridasan Vs Lissy Chummar and Another

Vijayanarayanan Vs State of Kerala