Partly allowed

A.Rahmath v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC18 Feb 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/361/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act but modified the default sentence to a composite fine of Rs. 25,000 payable as compensation, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 25,000 payable as compensation; imprisonment suspended as default sentence.

A.Rahmath Vs State of Kerala and 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 361 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.584/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD S.T. NO. 3041/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -I, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-

¶8

¶9

A.RAHMATH, W/O.LATE KAMAL,

¶10

MUKKANNATHPARAMBU, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. MR. SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶12

MS. BINDU GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:-

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

K.P.KUTTAN, PROPRIETOR, MAHILA FASHION JEWELLERY, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD.

¶17

ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

====================== Crl.R.P. No. 361 of 2010 ======================

¶21

Dated, this the 18^th day of February, 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 S.T. No. 3041 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class MagistrateI, Palakkad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence

¶24

passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.23,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.23,000/-.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

The courts below have concurrently held that the

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.R..P. No. 361/2010

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

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

¶32

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.25,000/-

¶33

Crl.R..P. No. 361/2010

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

(Rupees twenty 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 five months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2010.

¶38

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

A.Rahmath v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rahmath v. State of Kerala and 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

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Jose Vs Scaria Meledath

P.R.Velayudhan Nair Vs Chimminikkara Karthiayani

Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs v.J.Victoria and Another

Chandraprakash M. Vs Animol and Another