Dismissed

Vattaparambil Hameed v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC22 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1523/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenge of a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings on the cheque's execution and affirming the sentence and compensation direction, while granting four months to deposit compensation.

What did the court decide?

Granted four months time to deposit compensation in the trial court via disclaimer through the court record; warrant against petitioner kept in abeyance until appearance on 29.11.2009.

Vattaparambil Hameed Vs State of Kerala and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1523 OF 2009()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.95/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II) COURT, MANJERI

¶7

CC.678/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

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

¶10

VATTAPARAMBIL HAMEED,ALANGATTU HOUSE, CHETTIYANGADI, KARUVAMBARAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. P.MUHAMMED KOLATHUMKUNNU HOUSE, PULPETTA P.O. MANJERI, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA FOR R2 SMT.A.LOWSY FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶19

CRL. R.P. NO.1523 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2009

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-ii), Manjeri in Crl. Appeal No.95 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2. His case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/from him on 4.5.2005 agreeing to repay the same and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 5.10.2005 for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved Exts.P2 and P3. Exhibit P4 series are produced by respondent No.2 to show service of statutory notice on petitioner. Respondent gave evidence as P.W1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner he had no transaction with respondent No.2, instead, Ext.P1 was given to one Mammunni, his former business partner and respondent No.2 has filed the complaint in collusion with the said Mammunni. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. Respondent No.2 denied that suggestion. Petitioner

¶23

CRL. R.P. No.1523 of 2009

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

did not reply to the statutory notice. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. Though counsel contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not legal and correct I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding so far as that finding is not shown to be vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

¶26

Learned Sessions Judge in modification of the sentence awarded by the trail court, directed petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.1, 50,000/-. Appellate court also directed that in case of default, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation I find no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence.

¶27

Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is in financial difficulty and unable to raise the amount immediately. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that petitioner was successful in dragging the proceeding until now. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant four

¶28

CRL. R.P. No.1523 of 2009

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

months’ time to deposit compensation.

¶31

Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the aforesaid time.

¶32

Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 29.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then warrant if any, against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

¶33

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶34

vsv

Vattaparambil Hameed v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattaparambil Hameed v. State of Kerala and Another

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

M.D.Thomas Vs Omana

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

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

Vs

P.a.Mukthar Vs State of Kerala

Siju Vs the State of Kerala, Rep. by the Sub