Allowed

K.Kamarudeen v. the Kerala State Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence but granted five months to pay compensation to avoid default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were confirmed, but the revision petitioner was granted five months to pay the compensation amount; failure to do so would result in enforcement of the default clause.

K.Kamarudeen Vs the Kerala State Co-Op.Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/18TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 344 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRA.260/2009 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA IN ST.520/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,PATHANAMTHITTA)

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.KAMARUDEEN

¶9

POOCAKKATTU MANNIL, VALANCHUZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OP.BANK LTD PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER VENUGOPALAN POTTI, KURIYADATHU MADOM, NAGAROOR P.O. KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035.

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Scl.

¶19

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶20

----------------------------------

¶21

Crl. R.P. No.344of 2012

¶22

---------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2012.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty. Trial Court therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of court and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

¶26

According to the complainant, in order to discharge the debt due to him, the accused had issued Ext.P2 cheque. The cheque on presentation bounced for want of funds. A statutory notice was issued to the accused invoked no reply. Since the amount remained unpaid, complaint was laid.

¶27

Cognizance of the offence was taken and summons issued. On appearance of the revision petitioner, all formalities

¶28

are complied with and the particulars of the offence were read

¶29

¶30

Crl. R.P. No.344 of 2012

¶31

out to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The respondent therefore examined himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked.

¶32

After the close of complaint's, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He chose to adduce no evidence. The trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that Ext.P2 cheque was issued to discharge debt and also found that there was no evidence adduced by the accused to substantiate his defence.

¶33

The learned counsel for revision petitioner did not seriously challenge the findings of fact. The learned counsel only prayed for some time to be given to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount.

¶34

It is on an appreciation of the evidence in the case that the courts below have come to the conclusion that the

¶35

offence has been made out. It is not shown that the findings are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. No

¶36

¶37

Crl. R.P. No.344 of 2012

¶38

interference is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Considering the fact that the amount is high and also considering the readiness and willingness on the part of the revision petitioner to pay the amount, it is felt that some time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation

¶39

In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the revision petitioner is granted five months time from today to pay the compensation amount, failing which the default clause passed by the courts below shall take effect.

¶40

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶41

Scl.

K.Kamarudeen v. the Kerala State Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kamarudeen v. the Kerala State Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

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

T.Augustin Vs Narayanan Athingal

Koshy George Vs Joseph George

V.I. John Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kareem Vs T.K.Fathima

P.Jose Ukkuru Vs State of Kerala

S.Gopinathan Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police