Dismissed

Mr.G.Soman v. Mr.v.K.Sasidharan & Another

Kerala HC22 Oct 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/3288/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The Court affirmed the conviction and upheld the compensation order, granting only an extension for payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; 6 months' time granted for payment of compensation upon execution of bond with sureties.

Mr.G.Soman Vs Mr.v.K.Sasidharan & Another — 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

THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3288 of 2009()

¶6

----------------------------------------CRA.105/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.417/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

MR.G.SOMAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, NALUPARAYIL, THAKAZHY P.O., AMBALAPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS.MR.ALEXANDER J.KARUVELITHARA MR.C.H.ABDUL RASAC

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

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

¶13

1. MR.V.K.SASIDHARAN, PRINCE JEWELLERY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

P.S.Gopinathan, J.

¶19

========================================== Crl.R.P.3288 of 2009

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2009.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1.The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.417 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Alappuzha. The

¶24

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 till rising of the court. He was further directed to pay Rs.25,000/-, the cheque amount, as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the

¶25

Addl.Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court)-I, Alappuzha confirmed the conviction. But the

¶26

CRRP3288/09

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

sentence was set aside. The direction to pay compensation was confirmed with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Two months' time was also granted for payment of compensation. Assailing the legality,

¶29

correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

¶30

2.Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the first

¶31

respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2. Though a lawyer notice,

¶32

CRRP3288/09 -:3:-

¶33

copy of which was marked as Ext.P3, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner, the liability was not discharged.

¶34

3.The revision petitioner has got no good defence. The evidence of P.W.1 remains uncontroverted. I

¶35

find that the courts below had correctly

¶36

appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in setting aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and

¶37

confining to an order to pay compensation. If at

¶38

all erred, it is towards leniency only. The direction to pay compensation is appropriate. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed.

¶39

CRRP3288/09 -:4:-

¶40

The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.

¶41

P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.

¶42

sl.

Mr.G.Soman v. Mr.v.K.Sasidharan & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.Soman v. Mr.v.K.Sasidharan & Another

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

Sudheer Babu Vs Shaji

Shabinesh Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Dasappan Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

T.N. Viswanathan Vs Moidunni and Another

Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala