Disposed

N.K.Vijayan v. Dr.Rajendrababu & Another

Kerala HC11 Jan 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/126/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision court confirmed the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence from compensation with possible imprisonment to a fine of Rs.1,55,000 payable within six months, with a default imprisonment term if payment is not made.

What did the court decide?

modify sentence to fine of Rs.1,55,000 payable within six months with default imprisonment for non-payment

N.K.Vijayan Vs Dr.Rajendrababu & Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------C.C.NOI.1002/2006 OF THE JFCM, KODUNGALLUR CRL.APPEAL NO.606 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

N.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALAPPAYA, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

DR.RAJENDRA BABU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, ALAYIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R1

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.R.P. No.126 of 2010

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 11^th day of January, 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.1002/2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kodungallur 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.1,50,000/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶24

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. 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 documentary evidence. This Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction will be loath to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below concurrently. I do not find any

¶26

Crl.R..P. No.126/2010 -:2:-

¶27

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 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.1,55,000/(Rupees One lakh fifty five 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 6 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 11^h day of January , 2010.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

N.K.Vijayan v. Dr.Rajendrababu & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K.Vijayan v. Dr.Rajendrababu & Another

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

Preetha Rachel George Vs K.Gopalakrishna Bhat & Another

4.R.SIVANANDA Prabhu Vs the State of Kerala

T.K.Suresh Vs Babu

Murukan Vs C.D.Anto and Another

Unnikrishnan.K Vs State of Kerala

Y.Siddique Abdulla Vs Methala Purayil Umma Kulsu