Partly allowed

A.P.Muhammed Iqbal v. P.Devadasan

Kerala HC10 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/339/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRLP No. 339 of 2012, the High Court of Kerala considered a revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act for a bounced cheque. The court found the sentence too harsh but confirmed the conviction, directing imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of compensation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed. Sentence set aside and reluenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of Rs. 1,05,000 within three months.

A.P.Muhammed Iqbal Vs P.Devadasan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/21ST MAGHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 339 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.30/2010 OF III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.3495/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED :

¶8

A.P.MUHAMMED IQBAL

¶9

S/O.MAMMU HAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'CRESCENT HOUSE' (MANGATTU PARAMBAN HOUSE) KAMBIL P.O., KOLACHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT

¶11

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶12

1. P.DEVADASAN

¶13

S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GEETHALAYAM' RAMANATTUKARA P.O VELIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 633.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RAJESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶19

- - - - Crl.R.P. No. 339 of 2012

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2012.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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 suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

¶23

According to the complainant, the accused received a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- for arranging a job visa to the complainant to Dubai. But the accused failed to arrange the visa. When the complainant demanded back the money, Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused. That cheque on presentation bounced for want of funds in the

¶24

Crl.R.P.339/2012. 2

¶25

account of the accused. To the statutory notice issued to the accused, he sent a reply containing false statements. Since the amount remained unpaid, the complaint was lodged.

¶26

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the 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 P6 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. However, he chose to adduce no evidence. Both the courts below on an appreciation of the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the complainant was successful in establishing the due execution and issuance of the cheque

¶27

Crl.R.P.339/2012. 3

¶28

and the return of the cheque for want of funds in the account of the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that there is no material to show that Ext.P1 cheque was executed by the accused.

¶30

The complainant has given evidence as P.W.1. According to him, the accused obtained an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- from him promising a visa. But the accused failed to arrange the same. So he issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned for want of funds in the account of the accused.

¶31

Both the courts below found that the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to prove the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused and its dishonour on presentation for encashment. The accused has no case that the cheque

¶32

Crl.R.P.339/2012.

¶33

¶34

does not contain his signature or the particulars in the cheque were filled up by the complainant. Both the courts below found that there is no acceptable defence set up by the accused as to how the cheque came into the hands of the complainant. The findings of the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence in the case and are not shown to be perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. No interference is called for under the revisional jurisdiction. This revision is without merits and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶35

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that the sentence imposed is too harsh and the revision petitioner may be granted some time to pay the compensation amount.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the fact that the revision petitioner

¶37

Crl.R.P.339/2012.

¶38

¶39

has expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the amount, it is felt that the sentence awarded is too harsh and it is not proportionate to the offence committed by the accused.

¶40

In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.L. Act, the sentence imposed is set aside and instead he is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant within three months from today, failing which the default clause as imposed by the courts below will take effect.

¶41

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶43

sb.

A.P.Muhammed Iqbal v. P.Devadasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Muhammed Iqbal v. P.Devadasan

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

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Sreeletha & Another

Radhakrishnan Master Vs v.M.Muhammed and Another

K.K.Sabareesan Vs P.T.Sajna

V.R.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Jesty Abraham Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Wilson Vs State of Kerala