Partly allowed

Nalini.a v. C.S.Radha Bai

Kerala HC16 Jun 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/1958/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction for cheque dishonour. The court found no error in conviction but modified the sentence. The petitioner was fined Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation payable within seven months to avoid imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; revision petitioner sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation within seven months to avoid three months' simple imprisonment.

Nalini.a Vs C.S.Radha Bai — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1958 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.301/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.1691/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD ------------------

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

NALINI A, D/O.CHELLA TEACHER, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

C.S.RADHA BAI, W/O.D.SUNDARA RAMAN, 2/434, KALCHETTY STREET, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N.S.RAM PRASAD, S/O. D.SUNDARA RAMAN, DO

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

Crl.R.P. No.1958 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2008

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.No.1691 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Palakkad, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.1958/2008

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

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.

¶25

What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya (2008(1)KLT 851), default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within seven months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.

¶26

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶27

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶28

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1958/2008 -:3:-

Nalini.a v. C.S.Radha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini.a v. C.S.Radha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu I.P. Vs O.v.Prasannan

M/S Alphonsa Cashew Industries Vs M/S Swathy Exports Kollam

Gopinathan Vs Valakkodan Velyaudhan

Padmavathy Amma & Others Vs M.M.George

Antony Vs Maanspowen Jackeous

K.P.Sreekumar Vs Antony Joseph Kavalan