Partly allowed

Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3744/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found no error in the lower courts' facts, maintained the conviction, but modified the sentence to allow the petitioner to surrender and undergo imprisonment until the day of the cheque payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed; conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court provided surrender by specified date.

Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2007/2ND ASWINA 1929

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3744 of 2006() -----------------------------CRA.23/2006 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.459/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, ERATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHENKUR, NETTAYAM P.O., POOYAPPALLY, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶11

SASIKUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, RADHAVILASOM, VILAKKUPPARA P.O., AYIRANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2007, THE COURT ON 24/09/2007 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶15

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 3744 of 2006

¶16

................................................ Dated: 24-09-2007

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No..459 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Punalur 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').

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Crl.R.P. 3744 of 2006 -:2:-

¶23

Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the cheque amount had already been deposited. It can be withdrawn by the 2^nd respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for which purpose he shall surrender before the trial court on 18-10-2007.

¶24

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

¶25

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶26

ani/-

Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan Nair 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

Babu Vs State

P.a.Mohammmed Aslam Vs a.Muhammed

N.v.Narayanan Vs Sathislavods & Another

Shyam Sundaer Vs M.Basheer

M.P.Abdul Azeez Vs M/S.Malabar Chit Funds (Pvt) Ltd.& Anr.

P.H.Noushad Vs Prayesh Kumar