Partly allowed

A.M.Sulaiman v. K.B.Shamsu

Kerala HC20 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/342/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Keralaheard a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 30,000 as compensation, holding default imprisonment cannot be imposed for compensation enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 30,000 payable as compensation; default imprisonment of three months if not paid within three months.

A.M.Sulaiman Vs K.B.Shamsu — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 342 of 2003(B) -----------------------------CRA.154/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N. PARAVUR CC.114/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-

¶7

¶8

A.M.SULAIMAN, S/O. MUHAMMED, KARATHARA HOUSE, KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. MR. E.M.ABDUL KHADER

¶10

MR. M.M.ALIKUNJU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

¶13

K.B.SHAMSU, ERAKKATHIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, COCHIN-22.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. MR. P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA

¶16

MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL. R.P. NO. 342/2003

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO. 1190/2003 IN CRL. R.P. NO. 342/2003

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

20.02.2009

¶23

sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶24

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶25

====================== Crl.R.P. No. 342 of 2003 ======================

¶26

Dated, this the 20^th day of February, 2009

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 114 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva 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.27,500/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.27,500/-.

¶29

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.

¶31

The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with

¶32

Crl.R..P. No. 342/2003 -:2:-

¶33

clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been 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.

¶34

What now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand only). The said fine shall be paid

¶35

Crl.R..P. No. 342/2003 -:3:-

¶36

as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within three months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.

¶37

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶38

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2009.

¶39

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶40

¶41

Crl.R..P. No. 342/2003

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

V. RAMKUMAR, J

¶44

Crl.R.P. No. 342 of 2003

¶45

20^th day of February, 2009.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Crl.R..P. No. 342/2003 -:5:-

A.M.Sulaiman v. K.B.Shamsu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Sulaiman v. K.B.Shamsu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivaraman Vs K.N.Sudheesh

M.K.Soman Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Soman Vs State of Kerala & Another

Shaji Karapuzha Vs Baby Augustine

K.P.Chandran Vs S.a.Joseph

Behanan Kuruvila Vs George Varkey