Partly allowed

Surendran v. George Varkey

Kerala HC11 Jan 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/296/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court confirmed the conviction, noting the defence version was rejected and evidence was correctly appraised. The sentence was modified, imposing simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and increasing compensation to Rs.70,000.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs.70,000 imposed.

Surendran Vs George Varkey — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 296 of 2002 ( ) -----------------------CRA.1/1994 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA CC.591/1992 of J.M.F.C.,THIRUVALLA

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

SURENDRAN K., THOPPIL VEEDU, PULIKKAPARAMBIL, THAZHACHAYIL, KULAKKAD, THIRUVALLA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶9

COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. GEORGE VARKEY, MANAGING PARTNER,

¶11

SANKARAMANGALAM FINANCIERS, THIRUVALLA.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

STK

¶17

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J.

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 296 of 2002

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Revision petitioner was found guilty by the learned Magistrate for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence correctly. It is pointed out that the evidence given by the witnesses examined on the side of the accused was not properly considered. It should have been found that the accused was the tenant of the room which belonged to the complainant and towards the rent if any which may fall due, a signed blank cheque was obtained by the complainant as a security and no amount was borrowed by the accused nor was there any liability to

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 296 of 2002 -: 2 :-

¶23

be discharged and as such the learned counsel submits that the conviction is unsustainable.

¶24

The evidence given by PW2, the complainant was accepted by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. The defence version that the cheque was issued only as a security was turned down. Since the evidence was re-appreciated by the appellate court and there is a concurrent finding and as that finding is not wholly erroneous, I find it unable to upset that finding. The conviction is thus confirmed.

¶25

The learned counsel submits that the sentence of imprisonment confirmed by the court below may be modified. Considering all the aspects, the sentence can be modified. In the result this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below:-

¶26

The conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is confirmed. In supersession of

¶27

Crl.R.P. No. 296 of 2002 -: 3 :-

¶28

the sentence awarded by the court below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.70,000/-, the cheque amount to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner will appear before JFCM, Thiruvalla on or before 07/03/12 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the amount of compensation as ordered above.

¶29

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶30

smvd

Surendran v. George Varkey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran v. George Varkey

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

Jayan I.D. Vs P.G.Hanifa

Junaid Ali @ Junais Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Sait Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

G.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Vs State of Kerala