Partly allowed

Maniyappan v. Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/86/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. The High Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, ruling that default imprisonment cannot be imposed for compensation enforcement and sentencing the petitioner to a fine only.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 20,000 payable as compensation; default imprisonment of three months for non-payment.

Maniyappan Vs Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd. — 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 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 86 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------CRA.796/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.4269/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

MANIYAPPAN, S/O.NADESAN, PAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

POORAM KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD. RICE BAZAR, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TOWN REP. BY ITS LITIGATION CLERK SURESH BABU K.M., S/O MADHAVAN NAIR, KONCHATH HOUSE, PUDURKARA, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 86 of 2009

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 13th 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.4269 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, 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.16,800/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is also Rs.16,800/-.

¶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

¶26

Crl.R..P. No. 86/09 -:2:-

¶27

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.

¶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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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 13^th day of February, 2009.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

¶33

Crl.R..P. No. 86/09 -:3:-

Maniyappan v. Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniyappan v. Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

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

Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala and Another

Kurian Chandy,Aged 72 Years Vs Santhoshkumar & Another

Sebastian.T Vs Abdul Gafoor.M

Muhammed Molla Vs Usman

T.Abdusalam Vs State of Kerala