Partly allowed

Shaji Thomas v. M/S.Benz Automobiles

Kerala HC1 Jul 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/121/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed this criminal revision petition in part. It confirmed the conviction of the appellant for cheque dishonour but modified the rigorous imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court and enhanced compensation to Rs.12,000, considering partial payment made.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.12,000; default of one month simple imprisonment.

Shaji Thomas Vs M/S.Benz Automobiles — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 121 of 2003

¶6

-------------------------------------------CRA.254/2000 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.128/1998 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O), ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJI THOMAS, AUTO CONSULTANT, RESIDING AT H.NO.112/42, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI - 2.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

M/S.BENZ AUTOMOBILES, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.N.MOHANDAS, S/O.SRI.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, LEGAL SECTION IN CHARGE, BENZ AUTOMOBILES, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI- 18.

¶12

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

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.C.S.DIAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR FOR R2

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER ON CRL.M.P.344/2003 IN CRRP 121/2003

¶16

DISMISSED

¶17

1.7.2010

¶18

SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.121 of 2003

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.128/1998 on

¶24

the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, was convicted

¶25

and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

¶26

Act. First respondent is the complainant. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No. 254/2000. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but, modified the sentence to simple imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment. It is challenged in the revision.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

¶28

CRRP 121/03

¶29

¶30

Exhibit P1, the dishonoured cheque, is for Rs.17,802.70 and was issued on 30.11.1994. The fact that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities are not disputed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

submitted that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, petitioner paid Rs.8,000/- to the first respondent and that fact was admitted by PW1 before the trial court and it is recorded by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 10 of the judgment. It is also submitted that as directed by this Court, for getting suspension of the sentence, petitioner deposited half of the cheque amount before the trial court and by depositing half of the cheque amount and paying Rs.8,000/-, as admitted by PW1, petitioner has already paid Rs.16,900/- and only less than Rs.1,000/- remains to be paid and

¶32

therefore, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified.

¶33

¶34

CRRP 121/03

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that though first respondent has received Rs.8,000/-, as admitted by PW1, he has no information about the deposit before the trial court and the sentence could be modified in accordance with law.

¶36

On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But, considering the fact that petitioner has paid Rs.8,000/- out of Rs.17,802.70, due under the dishonoured cheque,

¶37

interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified to imprisonment rill rising of court and a compensation of Rs.12,000/- to be paid to the first respondent and in default simple imprisonment for one month.

¶38

Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. The

¶39

CRRP 121/03

¶40

¶41

sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.12,000/- to be paid

¶42

to the first respondent and in default simple imprisonment for one month. If petitioner has deposited any amount before the Magistrate as directed by this Court to suspend the sentence, he need deposit only the balance amount. Petitioner is also permitted to pay the balance amount directly to the first respondent and produce the receipt and satisfy the Magistrate that compensation has been paid. Petitioner is directed to appear before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam on 10.08.2010 . Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence.

¶43

1^st July, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv

¶44

CRRP 121/03

¶45

¶46

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.121 of 2003

¶48

ORDER

¶49

1^st July, 2010

Shaji Thomas v. M/S.Benz Automobiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Thomas v. M/S.Benz Automobiles

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

Mohammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

S.a.Mamman Vs C.P.Gopalan Achari

Hammed Vs the State of Kerala

Chiruthakutty Vs the Excise Inspector

P.K.Satheesan Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Hariharan Vs State of Kerala