Partly allowed

P.M.Kuriakose v. P.v.Mohanan

Kerala HC6 Jul 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1343/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the sentence to include a fine of Rs. 1,10,000 as compensation, with default imprisonmentروط four months if the fine is not paid.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,10,000 payable as compensation; default imprisonment of four months if payment not made.

P.M.Kuriakose Vs P.v.Mohanan — 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

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1343 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRA.296/2003 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY IN ST.466/2001 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

P.M.KURIAKOSE S/O. P.J.MAICHLE, FORM LAND, SOUTH BAZAR KANNUR - 2.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.NIRMALAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. P.V.MOHANAN OLACHERIKAVU, TALAP, KANNUR – 671 001.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SUKUMARAN.K.

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶20

CRL. R.P. No. 1343 of 2012 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2012

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 296/2003 of the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.C. No. 466/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court – 1, Kannur. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶23

On a careful evaluation of the evidence, the courts below found that the cheque in question was validly drawn in the name of the first respondent/complainant for discharging a legally enforceable debt. The courts below also found that the revision petitioner herein had failed to discharge the liability towards the first respondent despite the expiry of the statutory prescribed period and further that the first respondent herein had succeeded in proving all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 138

¶24

CRL. R.P. No. 1343 of 2012 -2-

¶25

against the revision petitioner. After careful evaluation of the evidence on records, the courts below, concurrently recorded conviction against the revision petitioner.

¶26

Reappreciation of the evidence and interference

¶27

with such concurrent findings of the courts below, is possible and permissible, only if there is palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence. Evidently, the defence set up by the petitioner herein was considered and rejected by the courts below. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor, I find no case warranting invocations of the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction against the revision petitioner. In such circumstances, a detailed discussions of the demerits of the case is unwarranted. Resultantly, the conviction recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is only to be confirmed and it is hereby confirmed.

¶28

CRL. R.P. No. 1343 of 2012 -3-

¶29

Now, the question that survives for consideration is the legality and sustainability of the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner. By virtue of the decision of the apex court in Vijayan V. Sadananda. K. and another reported in 2009 (6) SCC 652, but then a slapping of a default sentence is permissible while awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. But, in that event, a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable. The sentence imposed against the revision petitioner herein is accordingly, modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/(Rupees One lakh Ten thousand only) under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. The said amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the first respondent herein. Therefore, the revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the amount before the trial court or to make payment of the said amount directly to the complainant, within a period of three months from today. In case the petitioner makes the payment directly to the first respondent, a memo to that

¶30

CRL. R.P. No. 1343 of 2012

¶31

-4-

¶32

effect shall be filed before the trial court. The petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months in case of failure to deposit/pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time by way of default sentence. To receive the sentence of imprisonment

¶33

the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 31.07.2012.

¶34

The revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

P. A. to Judge

¶39

In the final order dated 6.7.2012 in Crl. R.P. No.1343/2012, the words “till the rising of the Court” are inserted between the words “undergo imprisonment” and “and to pay a fine of” occurring in line eleven of paragraph 4 as also between the words “to receive the sentence of imprisonment” and “the petitioner shall surrender” occurring in the last sentence of the same paragraph.

¶40

Vide order dated 16.7.2012 in Crl.R.P. No.1343/2012.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Registrar (Judicial)

¶43

P.M.Kuriakose v. P.v.Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Kuriakose v. P.v.Mohanan

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

R.Balachandran Vs M.S.Jaya

Payapura Muhammed Haneef Vs N.K.Abdulrahiman

Sunil E.S Vs Rashni M.N

Sudheer Vs Dileep

Ibrahimkutty Vs Subaidath

Father Varghese Pullyattel Vs State of Kerala