Dismissed

Husain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1508/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition against a conviction and modified sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The court confirmed the conviction and the reduced sentence but granted the appellant three months to pay the remaining compensation. Default would attract one month imprisonment, and surrender was required by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence and compensation affirmed. Appellant granted three months to pay balance compensation of Rs. 35,000. Failure to do so attracts one month default sentence; surrender by O

Husain 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1508 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRA.528/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT(ADHOC 2), THRISSUR IN CC.21/1996 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

HUSAIN,

¶9

S/O.ABUBACKER, KATTIL HOUSE, BLANGADU DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶11

SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶12

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

2. JIJU.C.CHACKO,

¶17

S/O.CHACKO, IMMATTILL HOUSE, ARIAMPADAM DESOM

¶18

MUNDATHKICODE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶19

PIN – 680 595.

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶24

Crl. R. P. No. 1508 of 2012

¶25

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 528/2006 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II, Adhoc), Thrissur. The petitioner was tried under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 21/1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced thereunder. As per the impugned order the conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified. The substantive sentence to undergo three months simple imprisonment by the trial court was set aside and the appellate court modified and reduced the sentence as imprisonment till the rising of the court. The compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the trial court as also the default sentence were confirmed.

¶28

It is evident from the judgment of the courts below

¶29

Crl. R. P. No. 1508 of 2012

¶30

-2-

¶31

that on a careful evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, it was found that Exhibit P1 cheque was validly drawn by the revision petitioner for discharge of a legally enforceable debt owing to the complainant viz., 2^nd respondent herein. The courts below have also found that all the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 138 has been proved against the revision petitioner. It is based on such findings that conviction was recorded against the revision petitioner by the courts below. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts below and therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction entered into by the courts below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.

¶32

As regards the sentence imposed against the petitioner, it is evident that the substantive sentence of

¶33

Crl. R. P. No. 1508 of 2012

¶34

-3-

¶35

simple imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial court was modified and reduced as imprisonment till the rising of the court by the appellate court. As relates the amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- it is, infact, only the amount covered by Exhibit P1 cheque, and the default sentence imposed is only one months' simple imprisonment. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Therefore, the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also confirmed.

¶36

When this matter came up before this court on 04.07.2012, this court passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- before the trial court as a condition to keep in abeyance the warrant issued against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the said order the revision petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/-.

¶37

Crl. R. P. No. 1508 of 2012

¶38

-4-

¶39

So the balance amount payable in the light of the impugned judgment is only 35,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and submits that the revision petitioner may be granted a reasonable time for paying the balance amount. While confirming the conviction and sentence, it is ordered as hereunder:-

¶40

“The revision petitioner is granted three months'

¶41

time for paying the amount of compensation payable by virtue of the impugned judgment of the appellate court. The petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said amount before the trial court or to pay the amount directly to the first respondent, complainant within the above stipulated period. In case of direct payment, the petitioner shall produce a memo to that effect before the trial court, a period of one week from the date of expiry of the aforesaid time limit or the date of payment, whichever is earlier. The

¶42

Crl. R. P. No. 1508 of 2012

¶43

-5-

¶44

amount if any, deposited already towards the compensation shall be adjusted against the compensation awarded. In case of default of the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation as ordered, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month by way of default sentence. To suffer the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 20.10.2012.”

¶45

Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

/True copy/

¶49

P. A. to Judge

¶50

Husain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikumar P.G. Vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.

K.N.Sreevalsan Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Mathew Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Jameskutty T.J. Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal, M.D., Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

A.Balakrishna Vadhyar Vs K.G.Mohanlal

V.K.Thankamma Vs Jyothi Kumar