Allowed

P.a.Francis v. M/S.Easy Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. & State

Kerala HC17 Dec 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/999/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition and acquitted the appellant of an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This decision followed the court granting permission to compound the offence, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and sentence previously imposed by the trial and appellate courts.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; accused acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; fine deposited refunded.

P.a.Francis Vs M/S.Easy Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. & State — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 999 of 2003()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.61/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.708/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

P.A.FRANCIS, S/O. ANTONY, PALLISSERY VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.O.JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

1. M/S. EASY KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., OLARIKKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOY, S/O. KANJIRATHINGAL PYLOTH, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.U.O.JOSE FOR R1

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.

¶18

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.999 OF 2003

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2009

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenge in this revision is to the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur in S.T.No.708/1999 dated 16-01-2002 convicting the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 23,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation which is confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.61/2002 dated 19-02-2003.

¶23

The case of the revision first respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint was that complainant is a firm conducting kuri business, that accused subscribed for a kuri and defaulted payment after receiving the prize amount and towards defaulted amount, accused issued the cheque Ext.P1 dated November 4, 1998 drawn on the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003 Page numbers

¶25

want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P5 dated November 11, 1998, the accused did not repay the amount which is an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶26

On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant PW1 and took cognizance of the offence. The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. PW 1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the complainant. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused submitted that the cheque Ext.P1 was issued as a security and that therefore no amount is due from him to the complainant. No defence evidence was adduced.

¶27

The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence.

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003

¶29

Page numbers

¶30

When the revision petition came up for hearing today, both parties filed a petition seeking permission to compound the offence which was allowed by me. As the offence is compounded, the revision petition has to be allowed and the revision petitioner has to be acquitted.

¶31

In the result, as the offence is compounded, revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal are set aside. He is acquitted of the offence alleged against him under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court shall be refunded to him.

¶32

P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE

¶33

sv.

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003 Page numbers

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003 Page numbers

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003

¶37

Page numbers

¶38

P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE

sv.

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003

Page numbers

P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE

¶43

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003 Page numbers

¶44

sv.

¶45

Crl.R.P.No.999/2003 Page numbers

P.a.Francis v. M/S.Easy Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. & State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Francis v. M/S.Easy Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. & State

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

Fr.George Kuttikkat Vs Anthony

T.Abdul Kader(Kutty) Vs E.Ashraf

Jose Kappan Vs State of Kerala

P. Raghavan Vs K.S.E.B

K.S.Prasad Vs Benny Joseph

Jojo Paul K. Vs M.v.Peter