Partly allowed

V.K.Mohanan v. B.P.L.Ltd

Kerala HC18 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/775/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 775 of 2002 affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act. The court held there was no error in the findings below but modified the sentence, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 47,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within four months to remain liable only for imprisonment till the

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified: contingent imprisonment of three months subject to payment of Rs. 47,000 compensation within four months.

V.K.Mohanan Vs B.P.L.Ltd — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2007 / 27TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 775 of 2002()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.75/95 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD ST.3626/93 OF JFCM-I, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

V.K.MOHANAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PROMISE KANDATH COMPLEX, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & NOT PARTY

¶12

¶13

B.P.L.LIMITED, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY P.V.RAVINDRAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl. R.P. No. 775 OF 2002 C ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 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 S.T. No.3626/1993 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-I, Palakkad 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 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

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.77/02

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

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.

¶28

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 the 1^st respondent complainant by way of compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.47,000/- (Rupees forty seven thousand only) within four 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.

¶29

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

¶30

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks

Crl.R.P.No.77/02

: 3 :

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

Crl. R.P. No. 775 OF 2002 C ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

18^th day of July, 2007

V.K.Mohanan v. B.P.L.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Mohanan v. B.P.L.Ltd

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

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

Mrs. Sudha Vs K.Prasad

E.K.Haridasan Vs Lissy Chummar and Another

V.K.Mohanan Vs B.P.L.Ltd.

V.K.Mohanan Vs B.P.L.Ltd.

Joseph @ Jain Vs State of Kerala & Another