Partly allowed

V.R.Renjith v. the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/200/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction of a cheque drawer under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence, ruling that default imprisonment cannot be imposed for enforcement of compensation. The accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000 with imprisonment as a default sentence for non-payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 60,000 payable within five months; three months simple imprisonment in default of payment.

V.R.Renjith Vs the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 200 of 2009(D)

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.21/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM ST.970/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II (MOBILE), KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-

¶8

¶9

V.R.RENJITH, VADAKKATH HOUSE, NATTAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.JAISON PALIYIL

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:-

¶12

¶13

THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS TOWN BRANCH SENIOR MANAGER, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

====================== Crl.R.P. No. 200 of 2009

¶19

======================

¶20

Dated, this the 16^th day of 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 S.T. No. 970 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class MagistrateII (Mobile), Kottayam 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.60,000/-.

¶23

The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.60,000/-.

¶24

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R..P. No. 200/2009 -:2:-

¶28

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

¶29

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. 60,000/(Rupees sixty thousand only). The said fine shall be paid as

¶30

Crl.R..P. No. 200/2009 -:3:-

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2009.

¶34

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

V.R.Renjith v. the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Renjith v. the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

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

Sebastian.T Vs Abdul Gafoor.M

Maniyappan Vs Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Muhammed Molla Vs Usman

Mani T. Mundat Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Sub Inspector

Hiranmayee Devi Vs T.S.Sreekumaran Nair and Another

Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala