Partly allowed

Rajeev v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC12 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/18/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC Supreme Court confirmed conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. Modified default sentence to fine only, citing Ettappadan case preventing default imprisonment for compensation enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 70,000 as compensation; simple imprisonment of three months imposed as default sentence if amount not paid within five months.

Rajeev 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 V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 18 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------CRA.50/2006 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.595/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

RAJEEV, 35 YEARS, ADAYATTU HOUSE MANNAM .PO., NORTH PARAVUR.

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

RESPONDENT(S):

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

¶14

RAJEEV.C.N., 41 YEARS,

¶15

S/O.NARAYANAN, ALUNGAPOKKAM, KIZHAKKEPRAM, THATHAPPALLY PO.,

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 18 of 2009

¶20

................................................ Dated: 12^th February, 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 595 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M. North Paravur challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs. 70,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.70,000/-.

¶23

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.

¶24

The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (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 conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or

¶25

Crl.R..P. No. 18 of 2009

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts belowand the same is hereby confirmed.

¶28

What now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy 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 five 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.

¶29

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶30

Dated this the 12th day of February 2009.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani/-

¶33

Crl.R..P. No. 18 of 2009 -:3:-

Rajeev v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Rakesan Vs Anie Xavier

Antu Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs State of Kerala

Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Kurian Chandy,Aged 72 Years Vs Santhoshkumar & Another

M/S.Fashion Fabrics Vs M/S.Sona Apparels