Partly allowed

V.O.Ravi v. Sasi.K.K.

Kerala HC19 Feb 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/275/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under Secs. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging a conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction but modified the default sentence for non-payment of compensation to a fine of Rs. 1,05,000 payable within seven months, referencing Sec. 357 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 1,05,000 payable within seven months; default imprisonment of three months if not paid.

V.O.Ravi Vs Sasi.K.K. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 275 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.59/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.27/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

¶7

II,PERUMBAVOOR

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

V.O. RAVI, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶11

VATTAPPARA HOUSE, NDUNGAPRA.P.O., NEDUNGAPRA KARA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶14

¶15

SASI.K.K. S/O. KUMARAN, KLLADUMBIL HOUSE, NEDUNGAPR.P.O., NEDUNGAPRA KARA.

¶16

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

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl.R.P. No. 275 of 2010

¶21

Dated: 19-02-2010

¶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. 27/2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Perumbavoor, 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. 1,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶24

I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R..P. No. 275 of 2010 -:2:-

¶28

of fact recorded by the Courts below concurrently. 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.

¶29

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. 1,05,000/(Rupees one lakh 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 seven 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani/-

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

P.S. to Judge

V.O.Ravi v. Sasi.K.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.O.Ravi v. Sasi.K.K.

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

Faisal Vs State of Kerala

A.Rahmath Vs State of Kerala and Another

Francis Vs v.J.Victoria and Another

Jaffar Sadique Vs the State of Kerala

Omana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Francis Xavier Vs Jose Babu and Anor.