Partly allowed

T.Muraleedharan v. C.a.Ramkumar and Another

Kerala HC18 Mar 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/927/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence for cheque bounce. Confirming the conviction, the Court modified the imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs. 3,55,000 payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment modified to a fine of Rs. 3,55,000 payable as compensation within eight months.

T.Muraleedharan Vs C.a.Ramkumar 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 MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 927 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.969/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE.

¶7

ST.643/2006 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE.

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-

¶9

¶10

T.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.LATE P.K.NARAYANA MENON, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KOODAPUZHA, P.O.CHALAKKUDI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. MR. V.G.ARUN

¶12

MR. T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:-

¶14

¶15

C.A.RAMKUMAR, S/O.LATE V.NARAYANA MENON, VENGALIL HOUSE, TALI, CALICUT-2.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI.

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

====================== Crl.R.P. No. 927 of 2010 ======================

¶21

Dated, this the 18^th day of March, 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.643 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode 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.3,50,000/-.

¶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

¶27

Crl.R..P. No. 927/2010

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

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.

¶30

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.3,55,000/(Rupees three lakhs and fifty five thousand only). The

¶31

Crl.R..P. No. 927/2010

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

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 eight 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

T.Muraleedharan v. C.a.Ramkumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Muraleedharan v. C.a.Ramkumar 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

P.Divakaran Nair Vs M/S.Teekey Rubberes (India) Ltd.

T.S.Sudha Vs State of Kerala and Another

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

M.E.Ali Vs State of Kerala

A.B.Vinodan Vs the State of Kerala

P.Babu Vs State of Kerala