Dismissed

Dr.Bhargavi Bhargavan Unni v. Varghese Mathew,Rep.by C M Mathai & Anor

Kerala HC17 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1394/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged concurrent findings regarding the dishonor of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court rejected the attempt to unsettle lower court findings, upheld the conviction and sentence, but granted the petitioner an additional four months to deposit the fine.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four months from the date of order to deposit the fine in the trial court.

Dr.Bhargavi Bhargavan Unni Vs Varghese Mathew,Rep.by… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1394 OF 2009()

¶6

---------------------------------------------CRA.268/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.1031/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT - ACCUSED

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

DR. BHARGAVI BHARGAVAN UNNI, W/O. DR. UNNI, M/S. ALLIED HOSPITALS LTD., 2/333, KUNNAMKULAM - GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM-21, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶12

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. VARGHESE MATHEW, CHAMAKALAYIL, S/O. EAPEN MATHEW, CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, VALANKARA MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MULLAPPALLY TALUK, RPE. BY P/A HOLDER C.M.MATHAI, S/O. EAPEN MATHAI, CHAMAKALAYIL(H),VENNIKULAM.P.O, VALANKARA MURI, MALLAPPALLY TALUK.

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

CRL. R.P. NO.1394 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2009

¶19

Concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of a cheque is attempted to be unsettled in this revision. Judgments under challenge are that of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal No.268 of 2007 and learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla in C.C. No.1301 of 2003. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 24.7.2003. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Power of attorney holder of respondent No.1 authorised by Ext.P7, gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated that petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from respondent No.1 and issued the cheque for repayment of that amount. It is stated by P.W.1 that when respondent No.1 and petitioner were working in UAE the transaction took place and later, petitioner issued the cheque at his house. P.W.1 claimed to have witnessed the execution of the cheque. According to the petitioner the signed blank cheque given as security for an

¶20

CRL R.P. No.1394 of 2009

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

earlier money transaction was misused. Petitioner did not adduce evidence in support of that contention or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise the same. Nor did she reply to the statutory notice served on her. Courts below found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel on either side I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below that petitioner issued the cheque in favour of respondent No.1 for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability.

¶23

Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed petitioner to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. In default of payment simple imprisonment for 3 months was also provided. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and converted compensation as fine while retaining the default sentence. It was directed that fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.1 as compensation. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court.

¶24

Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four months’ time to deposit fine. Counsel stated that petitioner is

¶25

CRL R.P. No.1394 of 2009

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

unable to raise the amount immediately. Counsel for respondent says that he has no objection in granting such time. Considering the circumstances stated by petitioner I am inclined to grant four months' time to the petitioner to deposit fine.

¶28

Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from this day to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court.

¶29

Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶31

vsv

Dr.Bhargavi Bhargavan Unni v. Varghese Mathew,Rep.by C M Mathai & Anor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bhargavi Bhargavan Unni v. Varghese Mathew,Rep.by C M Mathai & Anor

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

Stanley Vs K.S.Roy

Kuttimoodu Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Bell Leasing and Hire Purchase Ltd. Vs Shaji.K.and Another

M.D.Thomas Vs Omana

P.C.Thomas Vs M.T.Parameswaran Pillai

Mathai Vs State of Kerala