Partly allowed

Sandhya v. Bhakshi

Kerala HC5 Jun 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/1484/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for a cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. It found no merit in interfering with conviction but granted leniency in sentence upon the petitioner's readiness to pay compensation, directing imprisonment until appearance and payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court on August 12, 2008, upon payment of Rs.1,50,000 compensation as per Section 357(3) CrPC.

Sandhya Vs Bhakshi — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1484 of 2001

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.324/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.54/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

MRS.SANDHYA W/O KRISHNANKUTTY VELLAMKADAVIL VEEDU THIRUVATHUKKAL.P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

BHAKSHI S/O BHASKARAN HOUSE NO.25/36 MMC CHANDRODAYAM KAVUMPADY ROAD MUVATTUPUZHA

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

A.K.BASHEER, J.

¶19

- - - - Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶20

- - - - ORDER

¶21

Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and she was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. In appeal, the order of conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court. However the sentence was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶22

The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the petitioner/accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,45,000/- in discharge of the liability which arose in connection with the sale of a car. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused. The statutory

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

demand notice issued by the respondent did not evoke any response. Hence the complaint.

¶26

The complainant got himself examined a as Pw.1. His witnesses were examined as Pws.2 to 4. Exts.P1 to P9 were also marked on his side. The accused was examined as Dw.1 and Ext.D1 was marked on her side.

¶27

As noticed by the courts below, the accused had initially set up the defence that she had had no transaction of any kind with the complainant and that she had not issued Ext.P1 cheque to him. But later there was a shift in the defence case. It was contended by the petitioner/accused that Ext.P1 cheque might have been one of the 4 blank signed cheque issued by her to one Baburaj in connection with a vehicle transaction. The accused, when she was examined as Dw.1, pressed into service Ext.D1 agreement which was allegedly executed between her and Sri.Baburaj mentioned above. The petitioner contended that Sri.Baburaj had developed some animosity towards her later and one of the 4 blank cheques

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

might have been handed over by him to the complainant. The inconsistent stand taken by the accused in the course of the trial persuaded the courts below to discard the defence version totally.

¶31

I have carefully perused the materials available on record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below. In my view, the courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act. The Sessions Court in appeal had shown some indulgence in the matter of sentence as well. Therefore no further interference is warranted in the matter of sentence also. There is no merit in any of the contention raised by the petitioner.

¶32

Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

30.05.2008 (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)

¶34

This revision petition was heard and order was dictated in open court on May 30, 2008. The revision petition was

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶36

:: 4 ::

¶37

dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence. The case has been posted again today for further hearing on the question of sentence.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to pay off the liability, if some reasonable time is granted to her. She prays that some leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence by setting aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment. In view of the preparedness shown by the petitioner to discharge the liability and the peculiar facts, I am satisfied that some leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence.

¶39

Therefore, in super session of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court, she is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court. However, petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on August 12,

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶42

:: 5 ::

¶43

2008 and remit the amount of compensation on her appearance. It shall be ensured by the learned Magistrate that petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit the amount as directed above, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

¶44

5-6-2008

¶45

(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)

¶46

jes

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

:: 6 ::

A.K.BASHEER, J.

Crl.R.P.No.1484 OF 2001

¶52

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Dated 5^th June 2008

Sandhya v. Bhakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya v. Bhakshi

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

M.U.Sobhana Vs K.K.Balakrishnan

Sosamma Vs State of Kerala

Augustine Vs Augustine

Cochin University Employees' Union Vs Cochin University of Science&Technology

Malabar Cements Limited Vs Maria Cements

Paravathy Nair Vs K.Narayanan Nair