Partly allowed

Jose v. Sebastian Paul

Kerala HC7 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/887/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court found no error in the conviction but modified the sentence to six months imprisonment conditional on payment of Rs. 68,000 compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified: imprisonment of six months if compensation of Rs. 68,000 is not paid within six months; otherwise no imprisonment pending payment.

Jose Vs Sebastian Paul — 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 7TH AUGUST 2007 / 16TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 887 of 2005()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.328/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.64/2003 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

JOSE, S/O. VARKEY, NELLANIKKATTU VEETTIL, THOMMANKUTHU KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.SHYAM KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

SEBASTIAN PAUL, PARAYANICKAL VEEDU, KARIMANNOR KARA, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 887 OF 2005 A

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2007

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec.

¶22

401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.64/2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-I, Thodupuzha 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

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.887/05

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

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.

¶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.68,000/(Rupees sixty eight thousand only) [giving credit to Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to orders of this court and which can be withdrawn by the 1^st respondent complainant] within six months from today, then he need to undergo only imprisonment till the

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.887/05

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶34

aks

Jose v. Sebastian Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v. Sebastian Paul

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

Iqbal Vs Gopi Pillai

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Assam Brook Export Ltd.

Narayanan Vs T.E.Vidyadharan

D.Shankappa Alva Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Achuthanandan Vs State