Disposed

Baby V.A v. Baiju K.Paul

Kerala HC8 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/354/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition confirming the lower appellate court's conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. It granted the accused six months to pay the fine to ward off the default imprisonment clause.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted six months time from the date of the order to pay the compensation amount; failing which, the default clause of imprisonment will take effect.

Baby V.A Vs Baiju K.Paul — 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 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/19TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 354 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.42/2011 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-1), ERNAKULAM CC.148/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.(EO), ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

BABY V.A

¶9

VADAKKEDETH HOUSE, PLOT NO.24, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682010.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R. RAGHUNANDANA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1. BAIJU K.PAUL S/O PAULOSE, RESIDING AT B-15, OPP. SIDCO GIRINAGAR NORTH, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682020

¶13

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

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2012 ALONG WITH C.R.R.P.356/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

STK

¶17

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

---------------------------------------------------Crl.RP Nos.354 & 356 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of February 2012

¶20

Order

¶21

The accused in both these cases was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty and was therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation in each case, with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/- in default of which, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶22

According to the complainant, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, issued

¶23

CR.RP 354 & 356/12 2

¶24

Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, which, on presentation, were returned for want of funds. The statutory notices issued to the accused invoked no response and the amounts remained unpaid. Therefore, a complaint was filed.

¶25

The trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant's evidence was called for. After close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. He contended that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant and issued cheques amounting to Rs.40,000/-. Though the entire amount was repaid, the cheques were not returned to him and the same have been used to file false complaints against him. However, he chose not to adduce any evidence.

¶26

¶27

CR.RP 354 & 356/12

¶28

Both the courts below analysed the evidence in considerable detail and came to the conclusion that the complainant is successful in proving that the cheques are executed by the accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.

¶29

At the time when these revision petitions were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he does not wish to address this court on the merits of the case, but he only prays for some time to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the courts below, in order to ward off the default clause.

¶30

6 . In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel that he is not addressing this court on the merits of the case, it is unnecessary to go through the orders of the courts below. However, in order to ensure that there is no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below, the Judgments of the courts below were perused. It is seen that both the courts have considered

¶31

CR.RP 354 & 356/12

¶32

¶33

the evidence in the cases in considerable detail and have come to the conclusion that the offence has been made out in both the cases. Even though the accused raised a contention that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- and had discharged the said liability, there was no evidence to substantiate the said claim. The statutory notice sent to the accused was not responded to by him. It was the above facts, which persuaded the courts below to reach the respective conclusions. There is nothing to show that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is called for with the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under the revisional jurisdiction.

¶34

However, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay the fine amount as directed by the lower appellate court and he may be given some time to pay the same, it is felt that a lenient view can be taken

¶35

CR.RP 354 & 356/12

¶36

¶37

and the petitioner can be given a short time to pay the fine amount.

¶38

In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence as ordered by the lower appellate court, six months' time from today is granted to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the lower appellate court in each of these cases, failing which, the default clause as imposed by the lower appellate court will take effect.

¶39

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

sta

CR.RP 354 & 356/12

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶44

sta

¶45

CR.RP 354 & 356/12 7

Baby V.A v. Baiju K.Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby V.A v. Baiju K.Paul

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

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

Abdul Kareem Vs T.K.Fathima

P.Jose Ukkuru Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sasi Vs C.S.Girish

N.Krishnakumar @ Unni Vs G.Abraham

Reji Vs State of Kerala