High Court confirmed conviction for cheque dishonour but modified default sentence to fine only under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., holding no default sentence for compensation enforcement.
Conviction confirmed; default sentence modified to fine of Rs.55,000 payable as compensation within five months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4038 of 2009()
-----------------------------CRA.550/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM ST.448/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-
G.R.SIVANANDA PRABHU, PARTNER G.E.PREBHU & SONS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. MR. P.CHANDRASEKHAR
RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED/STATE:-
ADV. MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
====================== Crl.R.P. No. 4038 of 2009
======================
Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010.
O R D E R
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. 448 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam 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.50,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.50,000/-.
Crl.R..P. No. 4038/2009
-:2:-
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 error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.
Crl.R..P. No. 4038/2009
-:3:-
(Rupees 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 five 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.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be maintained.
Whether a default sentence can be imposed for enforcement of an order for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. AbdullakoyaReferred¶30
_Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya_- _2008 (1) KLT 851_
4 provisions across 2 enactments
G.R.SIVANANDA PRABHU
THE STATE OF KERALA
KUNJUMON VARGHESE
V.RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
