The High Court confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the sentence following a Supreme Court precedent.
Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with three months' imprisonment in default of payment.
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.RAMKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 225 of 2009()
CRA NO.208/2006 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS NANJERI(AD HOC II) S.T.NO.1254/2002 OF J.F.C.M -1, PERINTHALMANNA
REVN. PETITIONER(S):
MUHAMMED MOLLA, S/O.KUNHI KADHER, THULLIYATH HOUSE, ANAMANGAD, PERINTHALMANNA.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =
Crl.R.P.No. 225 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 13th day of February,2009
O R D E R
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.1254 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-1, Perinthalmanna, 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.2,00,000/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,00,000/-.
Crl.R..P. No. 225/2009 -:2:-
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.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
sj
Crl.R..P. No. 225/2009 -:3:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below could have imposed a default sentence for the enforcement of a compensation order under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. after the decision in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty.
Whether the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required modification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ettappadan AhammedkuttyFollowed¶4
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851
4 provisions across 2 enactments
MUHAMMED MOLLA
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. RAMKUMAR
Parties & counsel
