Disposed

Muhammed Shreef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1568/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction and modified sentence of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court imposed a fine payable as compensation and granted five months’ time for payment, specifying a default sentence of two months imprisonment if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Fine of Rs. 1,34,000 confirmed as compensation; five months time granted for payment; default sentence of two months imprisonment if not paid.

Muhammed Shreef 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/25TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1568 of 2012 (A)

¶6

IN CRA.88/2012 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(SPL.COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES)KOZHIKODE

¶7

IN CC.331/2010 of SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMED SHREEF, S/O ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 33YRS, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O. KARANTHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

¶11

SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶12

SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)& STATE:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

2. M. SATHEESH BABU,

¶18

S/O BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YRS,

¶19

VALLUVAPRA VEETTIL, THAMARASSERI AMSOM,

¶20

P.O. CHELANNUR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶21

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

LSN

¶24

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶25

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

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 1568 OF 2012

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 16th day of August 2012

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

T his revision petition is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2012 of the Court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The revision petitioner was the sole accused in C.C.No. 331/2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the impugned judgment while confirming the conviction, the appellate court modified the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month was set aside. He was sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.1, 34,000/- as fine to the 2^nd respondent and the said amount, if realized, was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of the fine amount, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It is in the said circumstances that this revision

¶31

CRL. R.P. NO. 1568 OF 2012

¶32

#2#

¶33

petition has been filed.

¶34

Evidently, the trial court after careful evaluation of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, found that Ext. P1 cheque was validly drawn in favour of the 2^nd respondent/the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the petitioner had failed to discharge the said liability despite the receipt of the statutory notice and expiry of the statutorily prescribed period. The appellate court, on a careful evaluation of evidence, found no reason to interfere with the conviction. Thus, it is upon satisfying that all the ingredients have been proved against the revision petitioner to attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Courts below recorded conviction of the revision petitioner thereunder. The revision petitioner failed to make out a case to show that there is palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts below and that the conviction is an outcome of such appreciation. Therefore, the conviction concurrently entered into by the courts below call for no interference and it is hereby confirmed.

¶35

As regards the sentence, the appellate court interfered with the substantive sentence of imprisonment and set it aside.

¶36

CRL. R.P. NO. 1568 OF 2012

¶37

#3#

¶38

Considering the date on which the cheque was drawn and the amount covered by it and all other relevant aspects the revision petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,34,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine amount, if realized, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the 2^nd respondent/the complainant under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. No illegality or error or impropriety has been brought out to persuade interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the modified sentence imposed as per the appellate judgment is only to be confirmed and accordingly, it is hereby confirmed.

¶39

On 13-7-2012 this court passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a condition for keeping in abeyance the warrant, if any, issued against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- before the trial court. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time for paying the amount of fine as has been ordered by the impugned judgment. This court ordered to issue notice on admission to the 2^nd respondent. Notice was served on the 2^nd

¶40

CRL. R.P. NO. 1568 OF 2012

¶41

respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and to contest the matter.

¶42

Taking into account the attending circumstances,while confirming the conviction and sentence, I am inclined to grant five month's time from today to the revision petitioner to pay the amount of fine which is to be paid as compensation to the 2^nd respondent, as has been ordered by the impugned judgment. If any amount has been deposited before the trial court towards the amount of fine, the same shall be adjusted towards the amount of fine imposed as per the impugned judgment. In case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner to deposit the amount of fine within the above stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months by way of default sentence.

¶43

Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶44

kvr/ /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge

Muhammed Shreef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shreef 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Balachandran Achary Vs K.G.Mohanlal, Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

N.S. Damodaran Vs K.G.Mohanlal

E.K.Sahadevan Vs v.K.Kuttikrishnan Nambiar

K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal

Sunny Anson Vs Varghese, S/O.Chacko

Shaju Sebastian Vs Kappacheri Ambu