Allowed

Mahendran v. Hemalatha

Kerala HC22 Jun 2011Crl.Rev.Pet/541/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It upheld the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and directed the appellant to deposit the remaining compensation within three months or undergo two months imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Allowed in part; convicted for Section 138 NI Act confirmed; imprisonment till rising of court confirmed; granted 3 months to deposit compensation; default imprisonment for 2 months.

Mahendran Vs Hemalatha — 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. 541 of 2005()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.809/2003 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.1642/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

MAHENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KAMBALATH HOUSE, KONNUR, NALUKETTU P.O., CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH

¶11

SRI.JOS MECHERY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

¶14

HEMALATHA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. VALSAN, RESIDING AT WEST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE CHALAKUDY DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

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

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R1

¶17

SRI.C.S.DIAS FOR R1

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON 22/06/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

**M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.R.P.No.541 of 2005

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of June 2011

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months as per judgment dated 24/11/2003 in C.C.No.1642/2001. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment rill rising of court and to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months (vide judgment dated 17/12/2004 in Crl.A.No809/2003).

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005

¶27

¶28

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 him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is praying for four months time to pay/deposit the amount of compensation ordered by the courts below.

¶29

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. The sentence of imprisonment till rising of court ordered by the appellate court is also confirmed. This Court has ordered the revision petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of one month as per order dated 04/03/2005 in Crl.M.A.No.2909/2005 while suspending the sentence. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay/deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- (less the amount, if any, already deposited) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005

¶31

¶32

In the result,

¶33

a) This revision petition is allowed in part.

¶34

b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment till rising of court ordered by the appellate court is also confirmed.

¶35

(c) He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation (less the amount, if any, already deposited) on or before 22/09/2011 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 released to the complainant on proper application. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 23/09/2011 for execution of the sentence.

¶36

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶37

jsr

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005 4

¶39

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005 5

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005

M.C.HARI RANI, J

Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001

ORDER

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005

17^th DAY OF JUNE 2001

¶48

Crl.R.P.No.541/2005 8

Mahendran v. Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendran v. Hemalatha

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.

P.T.Achamma Vs State of Kerala