Allowed

N.P.Khalid v. v.Anand Kumar

Kerala HC17 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1458/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original sentence was modified to impose imprisonment till the rising of the court with a monetary compensation of Rs. 65,000, fail which simple imprisonment for three months would be enforced.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of conviction. Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of Rs. 65,000 compensation; default leads to three months simple imprisonment.

N.P.Khalid Vs v.Anand Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1458 of 2006 ( )

¶6

(CRA.470/2004 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE ST.241/2004 of SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE)

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.:

¶8

N.P.KHALID, S/O.VEERANKOYA HAJI,

¶9

SOVERIN PLY WORKS, CHERUVANNOOR P.O.FEROKE KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE.:

¶12

1. V.ANANDKUMAR, S/O.BALAN,

¶13

KANNEDATH HOUSE, CHERUVANNOOR, P.O.KOLATHARA

¶14

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶15

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶16

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶17

ERNAKULAM.

¶18

R1- BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR

¶19

R2- BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

SCL.

¶22

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶23

Crl. R.P. No: 1458 of 2006

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner challenges the concurrent verdict of conviction entered and the sentence passed against him in a case filed under section 138 of N.I. Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Two cheques for Rs.25,000/- each were issued by the accused. Those two cheques (Exts. P1 and P2), on presentment, were bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Statutory notices were sent and the formalities were complied with. The two courts below analysed the evidence and found that the two cheques were issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. I heard both sides. I find no reason to upset the finding so entered by the two courts below.

¶27

Crl.R.P. No: 1458/2006

¶28

-2-

¶29

The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jail sentence may be avoided. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that the cheques were of the year 2001 and so compensation may be double the cheque amount. Considering all the aspects, sentence can be modified to a certain extent.

¶30

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as below:

¶31

The conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the two courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of the same, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall appear before the learned

¶32

Crl.R.P. No: 1458/2006

¶33

-3-

¶34

Magistrate on 17.10.2012 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the compensation amount. If not, the learned Magistrate will take steps to execute the sentence immediately.

¶35

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

P.A. to Judge

¶38

jjj

N.P.Khalid v. v.Anand Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Khalid v. v.Anand Kumar

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

Abraham @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Joy S/O.Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Kuruvila Vs M/S.Honkong & Shanghai Banking Corporat

A.Muhammed Yusuf Vs State of Kerala and Another

Vinod Vs State of Kerala