Criminal Revision Petition against conviction and sentence for Section 138 NI Act. Revision Court confirmed conviction, upheld compensation, and granted two months to pay fine to ward off default imprisonment.
Granta two months from the date to pay compensation; default imprisonment remains if unpaid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933
CRRP.No. 155 of 2012 ()
CRA.504/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.165/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
F.EUGIN FERNANDAZ DAISY GARDENS, CONVENT ROAD GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
1. O.B.BIJU
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2012.
ORDER
Having found that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.52,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. It was also directed that if the fine amount is realised, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence as one of imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.52,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days.
Crl.R.P.155/2012. 2
want of funds. Statutory notice, though served on the accused, did not invoke any response nor was the amount repaid. Hence, the complaint was lodged.
trial court. On appearance of the accused, particulars of the offence were read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and had Exts.P1 to P6 marked. After the close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. According to him, he had money transactions with the brother-in-law of the complainant and the complainant is a total stranger to him. According to him, he issued three cheques to the brother-in-law of the complainant, and one of those cheques was misused by the complainant. He examined D.W.1 in
3
Crl.R.P.155/2012.
support of his case. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the offence has been made out and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned. In appeal, except the modification of the sentence, nothing more happened.
Crl.R.P.155/2012.
4
have considered the evidence of D.W.1 and found that it is of no help to the accused.
that the cheque was issued to discharge the debt due to the complainant and on presentation it bounced for want of funds. The accused had no acceptable explanation as to how the cheque happened to come into the possession of the complainant. Admittedly the cheque contains the signature of the accused. There is nothing to show that the cheque was infact issued to the brother-in-law of the complainant as claimed by the accused. After receiving the statutory notice the accused remained passive and if he had a case that he had no debt to be discharged to P.W.1, he would have immediately responded. He did nothing in the matter.
Crl.R.P.155/2012.
5
the case, it is felt that some time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount.
In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate court, the petitioner is granted two months from today to pay the compensation amount awarded by the courts below, failing
Crl.R.P.155/2012.
6
which the default sentence imposed by the lower appellate
court shall take effect.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sb.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court's conviction and modified sentence in a cheque bounce case require interference under revisional jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
F.EUGIN FERNANDAZ DAISY GARDENS
O.B. BIJU
STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
