The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The court rejected relief and retained the appellate conviction, granting four months to pay compensation.
Four months time granted to pay compensation amount; failure will attract default imprisonment clause.
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
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2012/11TH MAGHA,1933
CRRP.No. 206 of 2012 (A)
(JUDGMENT IN CRA.456/2010 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM DATED 01.08.2011 CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN CC.996/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR DATED 21.10.2010)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
SOOJA KHAN, S/O.IBRAHM RAWTHER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ELAVALLY, THAVARATHY, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. V.N.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.NANU, KAVITHA BHAVAN, CHEMMANTHOOR, PUNALUR - 695 306.
R1 BY SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AMV
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
ORDER
The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/to P.W.1 under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.206/2012. 2
want of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued to the accused did not invoke any reply, nor was the amount paid. Hence the complaint was lodged.
trial court. On appearance of the accused, particulars of the offence were read out to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and had Exts.P1 to P9 marked. After the close of the prosecution 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. He had Ext.D1 marked. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence in the case found that the complainant was successful in establishing the due execution and issuance of the cheque and the return of the cheque for want of funds in the account of the accused. The trial court also found
Crl.R.P.206/2012.
3
that there was no acceptable defence set up by the accused and therefore he was found guilty. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Crl.R.P.206/2012.
4
Ext.D1 was produced to show that the complainant had no sufficient income to pay the amount to the accused and both the courts below have found that that item of evidence is not sufficient to establish the said fact. The accused admitted his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. But he denied the execution and its issuance to the complainant. The courts below held that the accused had given no satisfactory explanation as to how the cheque came into the possession of the complainant. Both the courts below have found that the complainant has proved the due execution and issuance of the cheque. If that be so, the presumption available under Sections 139 and 118 of N.I. Act are available to the complainant. The defence has to rebut the presumption and there was no attempt from the side of the accused to rebut the presumption. To crown it all, on receiving the statutory notice, the accused remained silent. If he had a case that the cheque has been misused by the complainant, he would
Crl.R.P.206/2012. 5
have at once responded. In fact, he chose to remain passive. This attitude of the accused shows his culpability.
In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the petitioner is
Crl.R.P.206/2012.
6
granted four months from today to pay the compensation amount awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court, failing which, the default clause as imposed by the courts below shall take effect.
The revision petition is disposed of as above.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sb.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the conviction and sentence of the lower courts despite the appellant's reliance on a defence document.
Whether the appellant should be granted time to pay the compensation amount awarded.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sooja Khan
State of Kerala
V.N. Raveendran
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
