Partly allowed

M.P.Praseed Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the accused executed the cheque. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence but granted a three-month extension to pay the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence confirmed; three months time granted to pay the fine amount; default clause to take effect if unpaid.

M.P.Praseed Kumar 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 184 of 2012

¶6

CRA.86/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA IN ST.2466/2006 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : -

¶8

M.P.PRASEED KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 37, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, CHOWA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA

¶10

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / STATE AND COMPLAINANT : -

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.

¶12

2. T.K.RANJITH, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 43, THEKKPARAMBATH HOUSE, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, MAYANOOR DESOM, VATAKARA PIN 673 101.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEEMA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DMR/-

¶16

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty, accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.PC, in default of the payment of which, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as to remit Rs. 2,62,000/- (Two Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Only) in default of payment of which the accused had to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. It was also directed that the fine amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- so realised shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Cr.PC.

¶21

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶22

¶23

The short case put forward by the complainant is

¶24

that the accused was very familiar to him and they were thick friends. On 24.01.06, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the complainant and to discharge the said liability, he issued Exhibit P1 cheque, which on presentation, bounced. To the statutory notice issued to the accused, he replied, containing false statements. Since the amount was unpaid, a compliant was laid.

¶25

Trial court took cognizance on the complaint and issued summons to the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Therefore the complainant examined himself as PW1 and had Exhibits P1-P7 marked. After the close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC. He denied the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence and denied, having had any acquaintance with the complainant. According to him, he handed over two blank cheques to DW2, who was his family friend for giving as

¶26

¶27

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶28

security to DW1 for borrowing some money from him and one of the said cheques has been manipulated to foist a case against him. In support of this case, he had Dws 1 & 2 examined and Exhibit D1 marked. The trial court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the complainant had been able to establish that the cheque was infact executed by the accused and issued to him and the defence set up by the accused is highly improbable and is also unconvincing, and accordingly, he was found guilty. Conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. In appeal as noticed, the sentence was modified.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the revision petitioner to show that he had not infact executed cheques as alleged by the complainant. It is evident from the evidence on that two cheques were issued by DW2, one of which has been misused by the complainant. The complainant has not been able to show that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as claimed by him and the execution of the cheque is not established.

¶30

¶31

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶32

Both the courts below while considering the issue come to the conclusion that the complainant has established his case. The complainant has stated that the accused is his close friend. As noticed by the courts below, there is no suggestion to PW1 that the accused has not borrowed the amount as alleged by him. The court below also found that the explanation offered by the accused is not convincing and not supported by the evidence on record. It is also contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that he was not in station at the relevant time on the relevant date, when the cheque is said to have been issued to the complainant. It is also pointed out by the court below that there was want of evidence in that regard.

¶33

What is significant is that the courts below have taken note of the fact that the reply notice is sent after a month of receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below were of the opinion that the reply notice is the result of an after thought. The courts below have also found that the complainant was financially sound to pay the amount. The court below had also perused Exhibit P1 and had come to a conclusion that it was

¶34

¶35

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶36

infact issued by the accused. Both the courts below found the evidence of PW1 sufficient to show that the cheque was infact executed by the accused and that the evidence adduced by the accused was not convincing and acceptable. The findings of the court below are based on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both sides. There is nothing to show that the findings are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. The result is that no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings entered by the court below.

¶37

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner prayed for some time to pay the fine amount as imposed by the court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the willingness and readiness shown by the revision petitioner to pay the amount, it is in the interest of justice that a short time can be granted to pay the fine amount.

¶38

In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the

¶39

¶40

Crl. R.P. NO: 184 of 2012

¶41

fine amount, in default of payment of which, the default clause as imposed by the lower appellate court shall take effect and if the amount is realised, the same shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶43

DMR /-

M.P.Praseed Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Praseed Kumar 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

Laiju Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Pappachan Vs State of Kerala

Sidhique Vs the Station House Officer

C.K.Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala