Allowed

C.K.Viswambharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/241/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dealt with a cheque bounce case. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the sentence, and ordered the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 within three months, failing which he would suffer imprisonment for four months.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 within three months, failing which suffer imprisonment for four months.

C.K.Viswambharan 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. 241 of 2012

¶6

CRA.120/2011 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM IN CC.169/2009 of J.M.F.C., PUNALUR.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED: -

¶8

C.K.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.KUTTY, TAPPING SUPERVISOR, R.P.L., AIRANALLOOR ESTATE, MANIYAR P.O., PUNALUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE : -

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU PILLAI, R.L.P., AIRANALLOOR ESTATE, MANIYAR P.O., PUNALUR-691325.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RAJESH

¶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 : 241 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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 suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-, in default of payment of which he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. It appeared that in appeal, the lower appellate court modified the sentence as

¶21

simple imprisonment for one week and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation, in default of payment of which he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount of Rs. 1,10,000 was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶22

According to the complainant, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and had

¶23

Crl. R.P. NO : 241 of 2012 2

¶24

executed Exhibit P1 cheque. The cheque on presentation bounced for want of funds and the statutory notice issued to the accused invoked no response and the money remained unpaid. Hence the complaint was made.

¶25

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial court. On appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to him, he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the complainant examined PW1 and had Exhibits P1-P6 marked. After closing the complainants evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. However, no evidence was adduced by him.

¶26

On an evaluation of the evidence, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the offence has been made out. This accused and the complainant were co-workers in an institute. PW1 has spoken to at the time of evidence that

¶27

Crl. R.P. NO : 241 of 2012 3

¶28

Exhibit P1 cheque was issued to him.

¶29

On an appreciation of the evidence in the case,

¶30

both the courts below have come to the identical conclusion that the offence was made out and the evidence adduced by the complainant is sufficient in that regard. The findings are based on appreciation of evidence on record and unless it is shown to be perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record, interference under the revisional jurisdiction is not called for.

¶31

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner prayed for some time to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel also prayed that some leniency may be shown the matter of award of sentence.

¶32

Taking note of the nature and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused is willing to pay the amount to discharge his liability, it is felt that some leniency may be shown to the accused. In the result while confirming the

¶33

¶34

Crl. R.P. NO : 241 of 2012

¶35

conviction, the sentence as ordered by the courts below is set aside and the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 1,10,000 within a period of three months from today, failing which he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.

¶36

P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE.

¶37

DMR /-

C.K.Viswambharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Viswambharan 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

M.P.Praseed Kumar Vs State of Kerala