Dismissed

Dasappan v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/3277/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court found the conviction correct based on uncontroverted evidence and dismissed the petition. However, granting time due to financial difficulty, the Court allowed a bond for payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Crl. R.P. dismissed. Six months time granted to pay Rs. 1 lakh compensation if bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties is executed.

Dasappan Vs State of Kerala & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3277 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------------------------

¶7

[ CRA.579/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.986/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA ]

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

------------------------------------------------------------------

¶10

DASAPPAN, S/O.KESAVAN, VALANCHIRA, KANJIKKUZHY PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.13, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. PRABHAVATHY SURESH BABU, KARTHUVELI, S.N.PURAM P.O., CHERAMANGALAM.

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RITHWIK

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PKK

¶19

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶20

------------------------CRL. R.P. NO. 3277 OF 2009

¶21

---------------------------------DATED THIS THE 21TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C No. 986 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Alappuzha. He was prosecuted by the 1^st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the 1^st respondent. In default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶24

Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. Appeal No.579 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II) by judgment dated 25-9-2009 dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.

¶25

The legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal are now assailed in

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 3277 OF 2009

¶27

¶28

this revision petition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1 with the support of Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1^st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo and that demanding discharge of liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P3 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidence by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The evidence of PW1, remains uncontroverted and unimpeached. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. I find no error, irregularity, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in arriving a conclusion of guilty.

¶30

The trial court as well as appellate court was very lenient in awarding the sentence. If at all erred, it is only

¶31

CRL. R.P. NO. 3277 OF 2009 3

¶32

towards leniency. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is facing acute financial difficulty, he is granted six months time to pay the compensation amount provided he executes a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶33

P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE.

¶34

PKK

Dasappan v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasappan v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Saju Vs Sulochana

Vimala Vs Usha Mohanan

Joshy N.N. Vs M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Sudheer Babu Vs Shaji

Shabinesh Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Rajeev V.R. Vs Sunithakumari and Another