The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence in a cheque bouncing case. The court upheld the finding of guilt and deemed the sentence lenient enough.
Revision petition dismissed; six months' time granted for payment of compensation subject to execution of bail bond.
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 P.S.GOPINATHAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3215 of 2009()
----------------------------------------CRA.480/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.1906/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ACCUSED ------------------------------
VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KAIMPANAKKAL, KANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM DESOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE
-----------------------
1. RAJESH, KIZHAKKEKKARA VEEDU CHUNANGAD AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
== = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009.
= = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in
ST.No.1906/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottapalam. The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation, to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Palakkad confirmed the conviction and the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation.
Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009.
-: 2 :-
Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed.
Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009.
-: 3 :-
cheque was given as security and that the said liability was discharged and misusing that cheque, the prosecution was launched, no supporting evidence was let in. It was brought in evidence that a civil suit filed by the first respondent was settled. That being the relationship between the parties, if the defence is true, this case also would have been settled. There is no material brought out to impeach the veracity of the testimony of Pw1. The evidence of Pw1 remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable.
Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009.
-: 4 :-
for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case are sustainable on facts and law.
Whether further modification or leniency in sentence is warranted on revision.
Whether the revision petition warrants dismissal or remand.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijyalakshmi
Rajesh
State of Kerala
P.S. Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
