Partly allowed

P.K.Mathai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3470/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revised a conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence to make compensation payment a condition for remission of immediate imprisonment, with a default sentence of three months.

What did the court decide?

Modified the sentence to make payment of Rs. 1,95,000 as compensation a condition for imprisonment till the rising of the court; otherwise simple imprisonment for three months.

P.K.Mathai Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 21ST BHADRA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3470 of 2005() ------------------------------

¶3

CRA.573/04 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM CC.1051/00 OF JFCM, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶4

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -----------------------------------

¶5

P.K.MATHAI, PUNNEDATHUMOOLAYIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA, THAIKARACHIRA, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAYKUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶8

-------------------------------------------1. T.A.SIVAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, - (DIED) THACHUKUNNEL VEEDU, MANARI KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

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

¶10

ADDL. R3. SHYLAJA K.S., AGED 33 YEARS, WIDOW OF T.A.SIVAN RESIDING AT THACHUKUNNEL HOUSE, MANARY KARA, MANARY PO MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, IN-686673

¶11

ADDL. R4 AKSHARA SIVAN, D/O.T.A.SIVAN , MINOR AGED 8 YEARS REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SHYLAJA K.S. -DO -

¶12

ADDL.R5 AKSHAYA SIVAN, D/O.T.A.SIVAN , MINOR AGED 6 YEARS REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SHYLAJA K.S. -DO -

¶13

ADDL.R6 APARNA SIVAN, D/O.T.A.SIVAN , A MONOR AGED 8 MONTHS REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SHYLAJA K.S. -DO - (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 TO R6 AS PER ORDER DT 26.7.06 IN CRL.M.A.7004/06)

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

Crl. R.P. No. 3470 OF 2005 C ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2007

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.1051/2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Muvattupuzha 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').

¶21

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

¶22

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 on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.3470/05

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

any error, illegality or impropriety in the finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. The conviction was thus rightly entered against the petitioner.

¶26

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 he complies with the condition hereinafter mentioned. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner pays to respondents 3 to 6, who are the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent, by way of compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety five thousand only) within five months from today, then he 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, he 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.

¶27

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

¶28

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶29

aks

P.K.Mathai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Mathai 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

K.S.Stancilavos Vs State of Kerala

Jacob C.John Vs Joseph P.Augustine

Purushothaman Vasu Vs George Joseph

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Kerala

K.Venugopal Vs P.P.George

Harshakumar Vs Sudharma and Another