Dismissed

Sunny Anson v. Varghese, S/O.Chacko

Kerala HC16 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1267/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition. Confirming convictions under Section 138 NI Act against petitioners for cheque dishonour, the court upheld the sentence and award of compensation, granting a two-month extension for repayment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence confirmed; two months extension granted to pay compensation; dismissal of revision.

Sunny Anson Vs Varghese, S/O.Chacko — 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/25TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1267 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRA.394/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR IN CC.49/2009 of J.M.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SUNNY ANSON

¶9

CHIRAYATH ALUKKAL HOUSE

¶10

WEST KOMBARA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA,

¶11

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. TESSY ANSON, W/O.SUNNY ANSON,

¶13

CHIRAYATH ALUKKAL HOUSE

¶14

WEST KOMBARA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA,

¶15

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶17

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶18

1. VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO

¶19

POZHOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAVALASSERY DESOM

¶20

IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶21

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶22

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

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

VPV

¶26

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶27

Crl. R. P. No. 1267 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2012

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Revision petitioners herein who were the accused in C.C. No. 49/2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakude, filed this revision petition against the judgment of conviction in Crl. Appeal No. 394/2010 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They now, stand sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation each of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶31

The courts below found that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt owing to the first respondent, complainant and that the revision petitioners failed to discharge the liability despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutory prescribed period. It was further found that all the ingredients to satisfy an

¶32

Crl. R. P. No. 1267 of 2012

¶33

-2-

¶34

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been proved against the revision petitioners. The petitioners have failed to bring out a case of palpable perverse appreciation of evidence so as to compel this court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction entered against the revision petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.

¶35

As regards the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners, evidently, the trial sentenced the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. As per the impugned judgment the appellate court found no reason to interfere with the said sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and also perusing the judgments of the courts below, I do not find any

¶36

Crl. R. P. No. 1267 of 2012

¶37

-3-

¶38

reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners. No case for interference is made out by the revision petitioners. Resultantly, the conviction imposed on the revision petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.

¶39

When this matter came up on 11.06.2012, this court passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- each as a condition for keeping in abeyance the warrant pending against the revision petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners have deposited Rs.15,000/- each in compliance with the said order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners may be granted some reasonable time to pay the amount of compensation as has been ordered by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that some reasonable time can be granted. In the said circumstances, while confirming the conviction and the sentence the petitioners are granted two months time from today to pay the amount of compensation in terms of the judgments by the courts below. In case the petitioners have already deposited

¶40

Crl. R. P. No. 1267 of 2012

¶41

-4-

¶42

any amount towards the amount of compensation the same shall be adjusted towards compensation payable by virtue of the impugned judgment. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within the above stipulated time the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each by way of default sentence. To suffer the sentence till the rising of the court the revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on or before 30.10.2012. Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

/True copy/

¶45

P. A. to Judge

¶46

Sunny Anson v. Varghese, S/O.Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Anson v. Varghese, S/O.Chacko

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

V.P.Balachandran Achary Vs K.G.Mohanlal, Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

N.S. Damodaran Vs K.G.Mohanlal

E.K.Sahadevan Vs v.K.Kuttikrishnan Nambiar

K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal

Muhammed Shreef Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Sebastian Vs Kappacheri Ambu