Partly allowed

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed revision petition against conviction under S. 138 NI Act, confirming finding of guilt. However, court modified sentence, directing payment of Rs. 75,000 to complainant within three months to avoid three months imprisonment. Petitioner to surrender on failure to pay.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to simple imprisonment till rising of court; defendant to pay Rs. 75,000 compensation to complainant within 3 months or face 3 months imprisonment; conviction confirmed.

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1280 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.121/2011 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA S.T.NO.509/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HARIPAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEKUMAR PUTHENPURAYIL, CHERUTHANA P.O HARIPPAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031

¶12

2. KRISHNAN UNNI S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN UNNI ARIVANNUR MADOM, MUTTOM P.O, HARIPPAD ,PIN - 690514

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE ADV. SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶17

Crl. R. P. No. 1280 of 2012

¶18

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 121/2011 dated 23.12.2011 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mavelikkara. There is concurrent verdict of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- with a default sentence of two months simple imprisonment. There is a further direction to pay the amount of fine if realised as compensation to the complainant under section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner took up the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 121/2011. After a careful evaluation of the evidence on record and considering the rival contentions the appellate court allowed the appeal in part. While confirming the conviction the substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and the rest of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court were confirmed. It is in the

¶21

Crl. R. P. No. 1280 of 2012

¶22

-2-

¶23

said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Though many grounds were raised to assail the impugned judgment by the appellate court, the revision petitioner has failed to bring out a case inviting interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. The courts below have concurrently found that the cheque in question was validly drawn by the petitioner in the name of the complainant and that there was strict adherence with the mandatory procedures and provisions under Clause (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of N.I. Act and further that the revision petitioner had failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. The defence set up by the revision petitioner was also carefully considered and rejected by the courts below while entering the conviction on a proper evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. There can be no doubt to the position that an appreciation of evidence is required by invoking the revisional jurisdiction only in a case where there is perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts

¶25

Crl. R. P. No. 1280 of 2012

¶26

-3-

¶27

below. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety warranting interference with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the courts below. In the said circumstances, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by the courts below are confirmed.

¶28

Now, what survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Apex court in 2009 (6) SCC 652 Vijayan V. Sadananda. K. and another slapping a default sentence while awarding compensation is permissible. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that in order to secure ends of justice the sentence imposed against the petitioner can be modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only). The said fine shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner may deposit the said amount before the trial court or make payment of the said amount directly to the complainant, 2^nd respondent herein within a period of three months from today. In case the petitioner makes

¶29

Crl. R. P. No. 1280 of 2012

¶30

-4-

¶31

the payment directly to the 2^nd respondent, a memo to that effect shall be filed before the trial court. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court for receiving the sentence of imprisonment on or before 29.07.2012. In case the petitioner fails to pay the compensation fixed as above, he shall suffer the sentence of imprisonment for three months. Resultantly, the revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence as above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶34

/True copy/

¶35

P. A. to Judge

¶36

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.a.Simon Vs Mohanlal

C.K. Vijayan Vs K.G.Mohanlal

P.M.Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Ajaya Kumar Vs Sreelatha

Sukumaran Vs State

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala