Dismissed

Manikandan v. Housing Development Financial Corpn Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/4069/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court confirmed the conviction against the accused but held that no interference was required regarding the sentence as the complainant had already recovered the debt through sale of mortgaged property before the revision hearing.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed; sentence not set aside as amount recovered.

Manikandan Vs Housing Development Financial Corpn Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4069 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CRA.411/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC- III), PALAKKAD CC.16/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

MANIKANDAN.G, S/O.GOPALAN, 216/B,RAILWAY QUARTERS, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD 678 009.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶10

SMT.M.MANJU

¶11

SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CORPN LTD,

¶14

P.K.M COMPLEX,IST FLOOR,MISSION SCHOOL JUNCTION

¶15

PALAKKAD,REP.BY K.SARATH CHANDRAN,JUNIOR OFFICER

¶16

LEGAL,HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

¶17

FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, P.K.M COMPLEX, IST FLOOR MISSION SCHOOL JUNCTION, PALAKKAD.

¶18

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC

¶21

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATHOOR.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.4069 of 2009

¶25

Dated 14^th June, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10.9.2009 in Crl.A.No.411 of 2008 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Palakkad. The revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.16 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and he was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6,45,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the matter was taken up in appeal as Crl.A.No.411 of 2008 that ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment. As per that judgment, the appeal was allowed in part and the conviction of the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial court was set aside and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,50,000/and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C.

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.4069/2009

¶29

¶30

Before the trial court the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the defence. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution the trial court found that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the ingredients to attract the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the revision petitioner was found guilty under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The sentence mentioned above was imposed in the said circumstances. The appellate court in Crl.A.No.411 of 2008 re-appreciated the entire evidence, but, concurred with the findings of the trial court. The appellate court specifically took note of the fact that in Ext.P3 notice sent by the complainant there was specific recital regarding the cheque in question and it was specifically stated therein that the revision petitioner herein had issued the cheque in discharge of an amount of Rs.6,43,410/-. The appellate court also considered the reply given by the revision petitioner herein in Ext.P4 reply notice. In Ext.P4 reply notice it was stated that “ന�°ള�Ra SjLŸ}ô]¤ പറ´ സ�ഗത�ക¥ എR¢r കƒ] സÚത�¨OÐO.” The appellate court in the said circumstances repelled the contention of the petitioner

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.4069/2009 3

¶32

that he had not executed the cheque. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. Evidently, such conviction was recovered after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. A revisional interference is called for only if there is a palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence. In the said circumstances, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is only to be confirmed. I do so.

¶33

With respect to the question of legality of the sentence imposed on him, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has been obtained by the complainant by effecting sale of the mortgaged property. Such amount was received as early as on 21.1.2009. In fact, I do not think it necessary to look into that aspect any further on account of the simple reason that the modified sentence was only to pay a fine of Rs.6,50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Admittedly, the petitioner had already undergone the default sentence imposed on him. When that be so, there is no scope for interfering with the sentence as well.

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.4069/2009

¶35

¶36

In the above circumstances, this revision petition lacks merit

¶37

and accordingly, it is dismissed

¶38

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶39

TKS

Manikandan v. Housing Development Financial Corpn Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. Housing Development Financial Corpn 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

Omanakuttan Vs Girish Kumar

Girish Babu Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Kareem Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Ani @ Anil Vs P.S.Bhaskaran

Wilfred Culas Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Mathew Peter Vs Thomas Mathew