Partly allowed

Sivaraman v. K.N.Sudheesh

Kerala HC19 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/461/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Revision Petition confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the composite sentence to a fine only, prohibiting default imprisonment for compensation enforcement based on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 53,000; default imprisonment for non-payment struck down.

Sivaraman Vs K.N.Sudheesh — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 461 of 2003(Y)

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.271/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.423/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III,

¶7

THRISSUR

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

SIVARAMAN, MENOTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PUTHUR DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.REHNA.P.G

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶13

¶14

K.N.SUDHEESH S/O. NARAYANAN, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, PUTHUR DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN SRIP.G.SURESH FOR R1

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2009 , THE COURT ON 19/02/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 461 of 2003 -B

¶20

Dated, this the 19^th day of February 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 423 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Thrissur 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.49,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.50,000/-.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 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

¶26

Crl.R..P. No. 461 of 2003 -:2:-

¶27

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.

¶28

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. 53,000/-. (Rupees fifty three thousand only) . The said fine shall be paid 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 four 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.

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 19^th day of February 2009.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani/-

¶33

Crl.R..P. No. 461 of 2003

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶36

................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 461 of 2003 -B ................................................ Dated, 19-02-2009

¶37

O R D E R

Sivaraman v. K.N.Sudheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaraman v. K.N.Sudheesh

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

K.M. Mohanan Vs M.V. Nalinakshan

Raveendran @ Orumonkuttan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs Siji and Another

M.K.Soman Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Soman Vs State of Kerala & Another

Salim Vs Kunhimuhammed & Anr.