The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 NI Act for dishonoured cheque, modifying the imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,95,000 relying on Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. Abdullakoya.
Conviction confirmed; imprisonment converted to fine of Rs. 1,95,000 payable to complainant.
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
THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 962 of 2010()
----------------------------CRA.692/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2232/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SURESH BABU G.S., S/O.GOPALAN, SENIOR SECTION OFFICER, PF SECTION, RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND NON-PARTY:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = Crl.R.P. No. 962 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 18th day of March, 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.2232 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Palakkad, 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.1,90,000/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,90,000/-.
Crl.R..P. No.962 /2010 -:2:-
error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.
Dated this the 18h day of March, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether default sentence can be imposed for enforcement of compensation order under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be maintained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. AbdullakoyaApplied¶26
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SURESH BABU G.S.
M/S.UNION BANK OF INDIA
V.RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
