Revision petition against conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentencing order. High Court confirmed conviction but granted petitioner three months to pay compensation, reducing default sentence term. Petition dismissed.
Granted three months time to deposit Rs.52,000 compensation; reduced default sentence to two months imprisonment.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1615 of 2012 ()
CRA.121/2010 of I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.57/2008 of J.M.F.C.-III, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SURENDRAN K. S/O KUMARAN CHETTIAR, KOKKOTTUKONAM VENJARAMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SUDHEER
SMT.N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENTS:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR-R1
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ==========================
CRL.R.P. No.1615 OF 2012 ==========================
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2012
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.121 of 2010 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.No.57 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Nedumangad, was found guilty and sentenced under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The substantive sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months was modified by the appellate court as per the impugned judgment. Sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months was set aside and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of court. The direction to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month was
Crl.R.P.1615/12
2
consequently modified as a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.52,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.
Crl.R.P.1615/12
3
under section 138 of the N.I.Act concurrently entered into by the courts below call for no interference and accordingly, the same is hereby confirmed.
of simple imprisonment for two months imposed by the trial court was interfered with by the appellate court and it was modified to one for imprisonment till the rising of court. Only a slight enhancement in the amount of compensation was made by the appellate court. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed as per the impugned judgment. Consequently, the sentence imposed against the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is also confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given some reasonable time to pay the amount ordered as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. I am inclined to grant three months' time from today either to deposit the said amount viz., Rs.52,000/- before the trial court or to pay it directly to
Crl.R.P.1615/12
4
the complainant/second respondent. In case the petitioner pays the said amount directly to the complainant/second respondent, a memo to that effect shall be filed before the trial court. In case the petitioner fails to pay/deposit the aforesaid amount within the above stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. To suffer sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 20.10.2012.
Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)
spc/
Crl.R.P.1615/12
5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
Crl.R.P.1615/12 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court below appreciated the evidence perversely regarding the issuance of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
Whether the appellate court's modification of the sentence warrants interference in revision.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to pay the compensation amount ordered.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surenدران K. S/o Kumaran Chettiar
State of Kerala
Gurudas S/o Bhanu
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
