Court confirmed conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act but modified sentence to a fine of Rs.50,000 payable as compensation, with default imprisonment for three months if unpaid.
Fine of Rs. 50,000 imposed as compensation; default sentence of three months simple imprisonment if fine not paid within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4277 of 2006(D)
-------------------------------------------CRL.A..312/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE, CC.108/2002 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA
REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------------------------
K.M.SASI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN MASTER, AKATHOOT MADAM, PANANGADU P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM, ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. K.K.KUNHIKANARAN, S/O. SANKARAN, KUZHIKEDANKANDY HOUSE, KOKKALLUR, BALUSSERY, QUILANDY TALUK.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P - R1.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P. No.4277 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of June 2008
O R D E R
In this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.108/2002 on the file of the JFCM II, Perambra challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
CRRP 4277 OF 2006 -:2:-
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 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.
CRRP 4277 OF 2006 -:3:-
compensation under Section 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.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand 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 four months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the courts below regarding the dishonour of the cheque and failure to pay within the statutory notice period was erroneous.
Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner should be modified in light of the Supreme Court decision in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. AbdullakoyaApplied¶29
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya (2008(1) KLT 851)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.M.SASI
K.K.KUNHIKANARAN
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
