Dismissed

P.Rauf v. K.a.Mohammed Ali

Kerala HC16 Dec 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/3340/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Kerala High Court examined a conviction and sentence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the issuance and dishonour of the cheque and found no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner granted two months time to pay the fine.

P.Rauf Vs K.a.Mohammed Ali — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3340 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.486/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.178/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

P.RAVUF, S/O NABEESU, AGED 50 YEARS, ESCOTEL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS EXPORTERS, LUCKY TOWER, LOGANS ROAD, THALASSERY, RESIDING AT SABEENA, GOODSHED ROAD, THALASSERY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT AND STATE:-

¶12

¶13

K.A. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O ABU, NARANGAPURAM, THALASSERY.

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3340 OF 2008

¶19

............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.178 of 2003 on the file of Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months, with a direction to pay Rs.55,000/- out of the fine realised to first respondent as compensation. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.486 of 2003. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, maintaining the fine and direction to pay compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and there is no evidence to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability and therefore the conviction is not sustainable.

¶23

¶24

CRRP 3340/2008

¶25

On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Courts below appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and found that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of Rs.50,000/- which was received from first respondent earlier. Evidence also establish that cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal.

¶26

Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Though learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge reduced the same to imprisonment till rising of court. Learned Magistrate awarded a fine of Rs.60,000/- which was maintained by learned Sessions Judge. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.50,000/- and was issued in 2002. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.

¶27

Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17.2.2009.

¶28

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶29

lgk/-

P.Rauf v. K.a.Mohammed Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rauf v. K.a.Mohammed Ali

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

Sasidharan Vs Radhakrishnan.C.K.

K.v.Mubash Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Riyas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Chevayur Pol

Muhammed Jahangir Alam Vs S.I of Police, Crime Detachment

P.I.Shahulhameed and Others Vs State of Kerala

Vc.Pradeep Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation