A criminal revision petition was filed challenging the sentence of Rs.3,000 fine under Section 138 of NI Act. The Court allowed the revision, enhanced the fine to Rs.85,000, and directed that Rs.80,000 be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Fine enhanced to Rs.85,000; Rs.80,000 directed to be paid as compensation to complainant.
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.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1291 of 2001() -----------------------------CC.703/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI
REVN. PETITIONER(S):
INDIRA REMESHAN, W/O REMESHAN, HOUSE NO.XIV/609 MEPPANA HOUSE, PANDIKUDI DESOM, KOCHI
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.K.D.PAUL DALIN FOR R1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI, J
Crl.R.P.1291/2001
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The complainant in C.C.No.703/99 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kochi, has come up in Revision. The case of the prosecution was that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and had issued a cheque dated 23.7.99 in discharge of the liability. Cheque was dishonoured due to want of sufficient funds. In spite of notice, the amount was not paid and hence the complaint was lodged. The Court below found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and entered a finding that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and had issued Ext.P1 cheque for re-payment of the same. Thereafter, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 138 of the Act with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. There was a further direction that if the fine amount is paid, Rs.2,000/shall be given to PW1 as
Crl.R.P.1291/2001
2
compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by the sentence that has been imposed that the complainant has come up in Revision.
Crl.R.P.1291/2001
3
Supreme Court in this regard in the aforementioned case.
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
V.GIRI, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the fine imposed of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 138 was inadequate and required upliftment.
Whether compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. should be directed from the fine amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskaran v. BalanRelied on¶24
Bhaskaran v. Balan (1999 (3) KLT 440 [SC])
2 provisions across 2 enactments
INDIRA REMESHAN
ANIE XAVIER
STATE OF KERALA
V. GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
