High Court bench overturned modification of sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and increased fine to Rs. 85,000. Conviction upheld. Appellant to surrender by 08-01-2010. Bail bonds cancelled.
Conviction upheld. Sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 85,000. Two months time granted for payment.
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.Q.BARKATH ALI
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 347 of 2002()
----------------------------CRA.104/1999 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.73/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------
K.A.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.APPU, KUNNATH HOUSE, KONGAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------
1. SREENIVASAN P.S., YESODA, KONGAD, PALAKKAD.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SRI.T.P.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.N.SASI FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
Crl.R.P.No.347 OF 2002
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.73/1997 of Judicial First Magistrate II, Palakkad and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.104/1999 of Sessions Court, Palakkad. He was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the trial court. Fine amount, if realised, Rs. 75,000/- was ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation. On appeal by the accused, the substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months and the direction to pay compensation was maintained. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
September 11, 1996 drawn on the Kongad branch of Dhanalakshmi Bank which when presented for collection was returned dishounoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P6, the accused did not repay the amount which is an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
Instruments Act rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ?
excessive or unduly harsh ?
Point No.1
before the trial court. No serious discrepancies or inconsistencies were
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
brought out during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. Further his evidence is supported by Exts.P1 to P11.
inclined to confirm the findings of both the courts below that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
Point No.2
undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Fine amount, if realised, Rs. 75,000/- was ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation. On appeal by the accused, the substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months and the direction to pay compensation was maintained. The transaction is of the year 1996. Therefore I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 85,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is upheld. The sentence is modified to the effect that he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 85,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Fine amount, if realised, Rs. 80,000/shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided under
Crl.R.P.No.347/02
Page numbers
Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Two month's time is granted for payment of fine. Revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 08-01-2010 to receive the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
Crl.R.P.No.347/02
Page numbers
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02
Page numbers
P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.347/02 Page numbers
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act rendered by the trial court confirmed in appeal can be sustained?
Whether the sentence imposed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is excessive or unduly harsh?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.A.BALAKRISHNAN
SREENIVASAN P.S.
STATE OF KERALA
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
