Dismissed

Noorji a.Rahaman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/376/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC revises a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The court rejects the plea that no liability existed as evidence showed payment was made upon executing the cheque. The petition is dismissed, but the sentence is modified to imprisonment until the court rises with compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of Rs. 50,000 compensation.

Noorji a.Rahaman 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 K.R.UDAYABHANU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2007 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 376 of 1999()

¶6

----------------------------ST.1915/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA (CRL.A. NO.299/97 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM) (CRL.A.2/98 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVOOR)

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

NOORJI A. RAHAMAN, PUZHAKARA ILLATH VEEDU, DOOR NO.XXI/66, KOODAPUZHA, CHALAKKUDI P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.K.SALIN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

A.V. SHIBU ALIAS, S/O. VARGHESE, ARRAKKA PARAMBIL VEEDU, NADUVATTOM, MANJUPARA.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI

¶17

SRI.P.VISWAMBHARAN SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.1597/1999 IN CRL.R.P. 376/1999

¶20

DISMISSED.

¶21

23-3-2007 SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

¶22

K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.

¶23

CRL.R.P.NO.376 of 1999

¶24

DATED THIS THE 23^rd day of March 2007

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of Pws.1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P9. The findings are concurrent. The case of the revision petitioner is that there was no pre-existing liability so as to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the deposition of PW1 that it is after issuing the cheque, the amount was paid. Even according to the complaint, Section 138 or Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be attracted as the amount was paid before the execution of the cheque. The evidence is that the revision petitioner and her husband approached the complainant and executed the documents, Ext.P1 cheque and Ext.P2 receipt and received the amount of Rs.50,000/- . I find that the contention that the impugned cheque was not issued towards discharge of an existing liability appears to be absurd and perverse. It is seen from the evidence of PW1 that the amount was

¶27

CRRP.376/1999

¶28

-2-

¶29

paid immediately on executing Ext.P1 impugned cheque and Ext.P2 receipt. I find that the above contention does not deserve serious consideration.

¶30

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. All the same, considering the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- vide Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva on 24-4-2007 to receive sentence. The Crl.revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

¶32

ks.

Noorji a.Rahaman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorji a.Rahaman 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

C.P.Abdulla Vs P.v.Venu

N.v.Narayanan Vs Santhi Slavos

Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sudheerkumar @ Sudheer Vs Manakkandi M.K.Kunhiraman

Camillus Vs M.C.Baby

P.v.Devadas Vs K.Prasanthkumar