Partly allowed

Manoj J.Chirayath v. Sukanya Kuries and Loans Pvt.Ltd

Kerala HC16 Feb 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/2182/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction and sentence for cheque-bounce under Section 138 N.I. Act confirmed. Imprisonment sentence quashed; fine of Rs.1,27,000 imposed enforceable as compensation with default imprisonment provision.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment sentence set aside; fine of Rs.1,27,000 ordered payable as compensation with 3 months default imprisonment.

Manoj J.Chirayath Vs Sukanya Kuries and Loans Pvt.Ltd — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2182 of 2003()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.181/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.2469/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

MANOJ J.CHIRAYATH, S/O.CHIRAYATH VEETTIL JOSE, NEAR SOUTH BAZAR, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

SUKANYA KURIES & LOANS PRIVATE LTD., PUDUKADAN IYPE BUILDING, PALAKAL ANGADI, THRISSUR, REP. BY T.K.RUBIAS, S/O.TAHIKATTIL KOCHAPPU, PAMBOOR, KUTTUR, THRISSUR - 13.

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R1

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.2182 of 2003

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 16^th day of February, 2010

¶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.2469 of 1999 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.1,22,500/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,22,500/-.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.R..P. No.2182 /2003 -:2:-

¶26

error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.

¶27

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.1,27,000/(Rupees one lakh twenty seven 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 six 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.

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 16^h day of February, 2010.

¶30

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶31

Manoj J.Chirayath v. Sukanya Kuries and Loans Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj J.Chirayath v. Sukanya Kuries and Loans Pvt.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

Jaffer Sadique @ Jaffer Vs State

P.Babu Vs State of Kerala

Anish Babu, S/O.Vokkan, C.NO.5378 Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

D.a.Mohammad Vs N.T.Kunhiraman and Another