Partly allowed

Mohanan M.A. v. Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Jul 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1177/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition. The court confirmed the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence. Imprisonment was converted to 'till the rising of the court' while increasing the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Substantive sentence of three months imprisonment set aside and substituted with imprisonment till the rising of the court. Fine increased to Rs. 45,000.

Mohanan M.A. Vs Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1177 of 2012 (B)

¶6

IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 412/2010 of THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-I), THRISSUR IN C.C.NO.875/2009 of THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO.II,THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

MOHANAN M.A. S/O.ANUJAN, MUNGAMKUNNEL HOUSE, KATILPUVVAM P.O. THRISSUR-680 028.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶10

SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶11

SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶13

1. SATHYADEEPAM KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD.

¶14

DEVAMATHA COMPLEX, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR

¶15

REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, JOSEPH, S/O.PAUL-680012

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR

¶20

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

¶22

ADMISSION ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

¶23

FOLLOWING:

¶24

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. =========================== C RL. R.P. NO. 1177/2012

¶25

===========================

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of July 2012

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The accused in C.C.No. 875/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 412/2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Thrissur. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶29

On the side of the prosecution, the complainant was

¶30

examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. After careful consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court found that Ext. P1 cheque was validly drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant for discharging a legally enforceable debt. Upon satisfying that the prosecution has succeeded in

¶31

CRL. R.P. NO. 1177/2012 #2#

¶32

establishing all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused/the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty thereunder. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 37,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. The appellate court confirmed both the conviction and sentence as per the impugned judgment. There cannot be no doubt with respect to the position that a re-appreciation or re-appraisal of evidence by exercising the revisional jurisdiction not possible or permissible unless palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence by courts below is made out.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and perusing the judgments, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction with

¶35

CRL. R.P. NO. 1177/2012 #3#

¶36

the conviction concurrently recorded by the courts below. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.

¶37

Now, what remains for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed against the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Vijayan v.

¶38

Sadanandan K. and Another (2009) 6 SCC 652 , slapping a default sentence is permissible while awarding compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. But, taking into account the facts and circumstances I am of the view that to meet the ends of justice imprisonment till the rising of the court, sentence of fine with an appropriate default sentence would be suffice.

¶39

In the circumstances, the substantive sentence

¶40

passed against the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months is set aside and he is sentenced to undergo

¶41

CRL. R.P. NO. 1177/2012 #4#

¶42

imprisonment till the rising of the court. To suffer the said sentence, the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 5-9-2012. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45,000/- and the said fine shall be paid as compensation to the first respondent/complainant under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C.

¶43

The petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the trial court or to pay the same directly to the complainant, within a period of three months from today. In case the petitioner pays the amount directly to the complainant, he shall produce a memo to that effect before the trial court within the above stipulated time.

¶44

It is made clear that if any amount has already

¶45

been deposited towards fine as ordered by the courts below that amount shall be adjusted against the amount of fine now ordered as above. In case the petitioner fails to deposit/pay the

¶46

CRL. R.P. NO. 1177/2012 #5#

¶47

amount of fine to be paid as compensation as directed within the stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months by way of default sentence.

¶48

In the result, this revision petition is disposed of

¶49

confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence as

above.

Sd/-

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

(JUDGE)

kvr/

/True copy/

P.A. to Judge

Mohanan M.A. v. Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan M.A. v. Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

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

T.Raveendranath Vs K.G.Mohanlal

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Sivaraman Vs Aniamma Varghese

Beenakumari Vs the State of Kerala

R.Balachandran Vs M.S.Jaya

Payapura Muhammed Haneef Vs N.K.Abdulrahiman