Allowed

T.P.Mohandas v. Suveesh K.

Kerala HC6 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1496/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenges a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a structured sentence. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the appellate court's modified sentence (imprisonment till rising of the court + compensation), dismissing the plea that the lack of cross-examination warranted a remittal for fresh disposal. The court granted the respondent three month

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence are confirmed. The petitioner is granted three months to pay Rs. 31,000 remaining compensation; otherwise, one month imprisonment will attach as default.

T.P.Mohandas Vs Suveesh K. — Money Laundering | 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 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1496 of 2012 (B)

¶6

IN CRA.356/2011 of SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE IN ST.109/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I.,PERAMBRA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

T.P.MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KELAPPAN, THATTANPUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, KALPATHOOR P.O., MEPPAYYUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. SUVEESH K.,

¶12

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MUTHUVATTU HOUSE, CHENOLI P.O., PERAMBRA, KOYILANDY TALUK. CALICUT - 673 305.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HAERD ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

LSN

¶17

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ===========================

¶18

CRL. R.P. NO. 1496 of 2012

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of August 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner is accused in S.T.No. 109 of 2009

¶23

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra. This appeal is directed against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 356 of 2011 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the appeal the appellate court modified the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court as imprisonment till the rising of the court and the direction to pay compensation with default sentence were maintained.

¶24

Based on the appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, the courts below found that Ext. P1 cheque was validly drawn by the revision petitioner in favour of the 1^st respondent, the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Evidently, on the side of the 1^st respondent herein/the complainant he was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. There was no oral or

¶25

CRL. R.P. NO. 1496 of 2012

¶26

#2#

¶27

documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revision petitioner had no opportunity to make an effective cross-examination of the 1^st respondent herein, the complainant. Even though the petitioner was represented through counsel, PW1 was not cross-examined. In the absence of any legally sustainable reason for such an action no interference is called for solely based on the said aspect. I do not find any reason to uphold the prayer for remitting the matter for a fresh disposal. In this case the courts below considered the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and found that the cheque in question was validly drawn in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and all the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 138 have been proved against the revision petitioner. The petitioner cannot contend that he was prevented from adducing evidence. It is a case wherein the revision petitioner had not availed the opportunity to cross-examine PW1. In such circumstances, upon the failure of the petitioner to show that there was perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts below, I do not find any reason for interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The upshot of the discussion is

¶28

CRL. R.P. NO. 1496 of 2012

¶29

#3#

¶30

that the recording of conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the courts below invites confirmation and accordingly it is hereby confirmed.

¶31

As regards the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, the trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the 1^st respondent/complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In the appeal the appellate court confirmed the conviction however, modified the sentence. As already noticed herein before the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The appellate court found no reason to interfere with the direction to pay compensation of an amount of Rs. 80,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in default of payment of the fine. I do not find any reason to interfere with the modified sentence imposed by the appellate court. The petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference with the modified

¶32

CRL. R.P. NO. 1496 of 2012 #4#

¶33

sentence imposed by the appellate court. In the said circumstances, the sentence is also to be confirmed. Accordingly it is confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner then, submitted that the petitioner may be given some reasonable time for paying the compensation as has been ordered. The learned counsel further submitted that at the appellate stage an amount of Rs. 16,000/- was deposited before the trial court and thereafter, pursuant to the order of this court dated 3-7-2012, a further amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited by the revision petitioner. Thus altogether an amount of Rs. 31,000/- has been deposited towards the amount of compensation. In the said circumstances while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner, the petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the amount of compensation. The petitioner is permitted either to deposit the amount before the trial court or to pay the amount directly to the complainant/ the 1^st respondent within the aforesaid time limit. In case of payment of the amount directly to the 1^st respondent, he shall produce a memo before the trial court to that effect within the above stipulated time. The amount already deposited pursuant to the order in appeal/revision shall be adjusted towards the amount of

¶34

CRL. R.P. NO. 1496 of 2012

¶35

#5#

¶36

compensation. In case of the failure of the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation within the above stipulated time he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month by way of default sentence. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court for receiving the sentence of imprisonment the rising of the court on or before 20-09-2012.

¶37

Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

(JUDGE)

kvr/

/True copy/

P.A. to Judge

T.P.Mohandas v. Suveesh K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Mohandas v. Suveesh K.

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

Sherly Baby Vs Saramma Varghese

Varghese Abraham Vs Siji Varghese

Janardhanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M.Abdul Rasheed Vs a.M.Mohandas

Surendran K. Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Rajendran Vs Southen Industries