Partly allowed

P.T.Achamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2011Crl.Rev.Pet/1157/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision in part, confirming conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modifying sentence to a fine of Rs.60,000 with two months default imprisonment, directing deposit to complainant as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to pay Rs.60,000 as fine/deposit within three months; in default, two months simple imprisonment. Conviction confirmed.

P.T.Achamma Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1157 of 2004()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.449/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.COURT), KOTTAYAM CC.227/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

P.T. ACHAMMA, H.S.A, ST. JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

K.S. SALIM, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIKACHIRA, PAYIPPADU, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR FOR R2

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

**M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.R.P.No.1157 of 2004

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of June 2011

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months as per judgment dated 26/08/2003 in C.C.No.227/96. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by setting aside the substantive sentence of six months of simple imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner/accused and confirming the order of compensation imposed by the trial court under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C vide judgment dated 31/1/2004 in Crl.A.No.449/03.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

¶23

petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04

¶25

¶26

At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against her by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel also submitted that Rs.30,000/- has already been deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 04/05/2004 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.4891/2004. The revision petitioner prays for three months time to pay/deposit the balance amount of compensation ordered by the courts below and the same is not opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant.

¶27

A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is confirmed. For awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, sentence

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04

¶29

¶30

of imprisonment is inevitable. The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for six months imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court has been set aside by the appellate court. At the same time the revision petitioner was ordered to pay compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a sentence of fine with an appropriate default sentence will suffice.

¶31

In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed.

¶32

(c) The sentence is modified to the effect that the revision petitioner is directed to pay/deposit a total amount of Rs.60,000/(Rupees sixty thousand only) as fine (less the amount, if any, already deposited) on or before 22/09/2011 before the trial court and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C which will be

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04

¶34

¶35

released to the complainant on proper application. In case of direct payment to the complainant, produce a memo to that effect before the trial court.

¶36

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶37

jsr

¶38

// True Copy// PA to Judge

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04 5

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04 6

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04

M.C.HARI RANI, J

Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001

¶45

ORDER

¶46

17^th DAY OF JUNE 2001

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04 8

¶48

Crl.R.P.No.1157/04 9

P.T.Achamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Achamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Shams Vs P.R.Radhakrishnan

Baburaj Vs P.Devadas

Maria Cements Vs Malabar Cements Ltd.

P.Paulina Vs K.K.Bhaskaran

K.C.Varghese Vs Suma M.K.

Mahendran Vs Hemalatha