Appeal against conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. High Court upheld conviction, rejecting allegation of forced cheque execution, and granted 2 months time to pay compensation.
Petitioner given two months' time from today to pay compensation awarded by courts below.
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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 258 of 2012 ( )
CRA.890/2007 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CC.NO. 3/2006 of ADDL. MUNSIFF & J.M.F.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.SALIM, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 63 YEARS, THIRUPPATHY RAJAYOGA TREATMENT AND RESEARCH CENTRE, RAJAM NURSING HOME, POKKULANGARA, ENGANDIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
PIN. 680568
R1 BY ADV. SRI. N. AJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
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.50,000/to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.258/2012. 2
the offence were read out to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and had Exts.P1 to P8 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 filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and had Ext.D1 marked. According to him, though the son of the complainant was completely cured of the disease, thereafter one Sasidharan Nair along with a few people came to his house and threatened him and obtained Ext.P1 cheque.
evidence in considerable detail and came to the conclusion that the complainant was successful in establishing the
Crl.R.P.258/2012.
3
case pleaded in the complaint and the accused was not able to substantiate his defence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
petitioner drew the attention of this court to the fact that the endorsement of having received a cheque is by Sasidharan Nair would be evident from Ext.P1 cheque and therefore the case put forward by the accused stands proved. This aspect has been lost sight off by both the courts below.
Crl.R.P.258/2012. 4
her. Even after 20 months there was no significant improvement and therefore she sought return of the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- which she paid to the accused. For that amount Ext.P1 cheque was issued.
Crl.R.P.258/2012. 5
memo to the Bank. He remained unconcerned after having been forced to execute a cheque fully knowing its consequences.
6
Crl.R.P.258/2012.
In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the petitioner is given two months' time from today to pay the compensation amount awarded courts below, 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 petitioners evidence regarding undue influence by a third party negatives the offence under Section 138.
Whether the revision court ought to interfere with the findings of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Salim
V.B. Sree Devi
The State of Kerala
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
