This criminal revision petition challenged a conviction and modified sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner time to deposit the compensation amount.
Time granted till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation; execution of warrant stayed till 31.12.2009.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2265 of 2009()
CRA.100/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI CC.367/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED
MONI P.K., W/O.JAYARAJAN, POLY QUARTERS, P.O.ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
Crl.R.P.No.2265 of 2009
-------------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
2
and P4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, in the mediation following the filing of the case against her husband it was agreed that Rs.50,000/- is payable to respondent No.1. Out of that, Rs.40,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 and balance payable was only Rs.10,000/-. Signed blank cheque given as security has been misused.
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
3
one lakh to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for six months was also provided. Appellate court while confirming direction for payment of compensation modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for three months and the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of offence and the object of legislation there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court.
Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above said period.
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
4
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31.12.2009.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and modified sentence passed in the cheque dishonour case arising out of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Moni P.K.
K.P.Ramesh
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
