Dismissed

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

Kerala HC14 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1313/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It permitted the petitioner three months to pay the compensation, with a default sentence of two months imprisonment if unpaid, and directed the petitioner to appear on a specific date to suffer the sentence till rising of the c

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three months time to pay compensation; directed to appear on 20-10-2012; default sentence of two months if unpaid.

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

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/23RD SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1313 of 2012 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.1.2012 IN CRA.189/2004 DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY IN CC.143/1996 JUDCIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE MATTANNUR)

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

E.K.SAHADEVAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KANNAN, PUTHIYA VALAPPIL HOUSE, DRIVER KEEZHALLUR P.O., KEEZHALLUR AMSOM DESOM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

V.K.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR VARAKKOTH KALLIADAN, S/O.KUTTIAPPA NAMBIAR KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM, ELAMBARA DESOM, P.O.KEEASHALLUR.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R2 BY SRI.BIJU MEENATOOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: al.

¶15

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

CRL. R.P. NO. 1313 of 2012

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of August 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-1-2012 of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Crl. Appeal No. 189 of 2004. The petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No. 143 of 1996 on the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the revision petitioner thereunder. The sentence imposed by the trial court was modified by the appellate court as per the impugned judgment. The substantive sentence of three months simple imprisonment was modified as imprisonment till rising of the court by the appellate court. However, the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- and the default sentence of two months imprisonment were confirmed by the appellate court.

¶22

The courts below on careful evaluation of the evidence found that Ext. P1 cheque was validly drawn in the name of the 1^st

¶23

CRL. R.P. NO. 1313 of 2012

¶24

#2#

¶25

respondent by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is further found that all the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been proved against the revision petitioner. It is such findings that resulted in the conviction of the revision petitioner. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of perverse appreciation of evidence and therefore the concurrent findings entered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for no intervention. Resultantly, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.

¶26

As regards the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed by the trial court was set aside by the appellate court and the petitioner now stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. After a careful consideration of the evidence, the appellate court found no reason to interfere with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of

¶27

CRL. R.P. NO. 1313 of 2012

¶28

#3#

¶29

Criminal Procedure. The default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months was also confirmed. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said sentence imposed by the courts below for the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Resultantly, the sentence imposed against the petitioner is also hereby confirmed.

¶30

When this matter came up for admission on 13-06-2012, this court passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- before the trial court within a period of three weeks from that date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the said order the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 15,000/- before the trial court. The learned counsel further seeks for a reasonable time for the petitioner to deposit the balance amount payable towards the compensation. The revision petitioner is granted three months' time from today to pay the amount of compensation as has been ordered as per the impugned order. The amount, if any, already deposited towards the compensation shall be adjusted against the said

¶31

CRL. R.P. NO. 1313 of 2012

¶32

#4#

¶33

amount of compensation payable to the complainant. The petitioner is permitted either to pay the amount directly to the 1^st respondent or to deposit the said amount before the trial court, within the stipulated time. If the petitioner makes the payment directly to the 1^st respondent, a memo to that effect shall be filed before the trial court within a week from the date of payment. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to pay/deposit the amount of compensation within the stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months as default sentence. To suffer the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court, the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 20-10-2012.

¶34

Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶37

kvr/

¶38

/True copy/ P.A. to Judge

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Nabeezath Vs Azeera

Aneesh N. Vs Vineetha T.V.K.

Raveendran P.P Vs Premavally T.M

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

N.S. Damodaran Vs K.G.Mohanlal

Sasidharan Vs Karunakaran Pillai