Partly allowed

Raji A.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/418/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against conviction and sentence for cheque bounce under Section 138 NI Act. Court upheld conviction but found original sentence harsh. Petitioner granted time to pay compensation with conditions for continued detention.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Original sentence set aside. Petitioner granted one month to pay compensation; otherwise, to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and further imprisonment.

Raji A.S. Vs State of Kerala — 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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/26TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 418 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.675/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-I, THRISSUR CC.2268/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJI A.S., S/O.SIDHARTHAN, AYINIKKATT HOUSE, THALIKULAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. BRD SECURITIES LIMITED,

¶14

BATHANI COMPLEX, THRISSUR ROAD,

¶15

KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL MANAGER JUSTIN C.J.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶20

- - - - Crl.R.P.No.418 of 2012

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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 a period of three months and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.27,008/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default, he had to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

¶25

According to the complainant, which is a company, engaged in the business of advancing vehicle loans under hire purchase agreement, the accused availed of a hire purchase loan of Rs.1,11,000/- for the purchase of his vehicle from the company and executed necessary agreement. Subsequently he defaulted in payment of

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.418 of 2012

¶28

installments. When the amount was demanded, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque which on presentation bounced for want of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued to the accused neither invoked any response nor was the amount paid. Since the amount remained unpaid, complaint was laid.

¶29

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial court. The accused entered appearance through his counsel and his personal appearance was dispensed with on his request. However proceedings were answered by his counsel. On pleading not guilty, the complainant examined PWs 1and 2 and had Exts.P1 to P9 marked. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the counsel appearing for the accused filed a petition to dispense with the same and that was granted. No evidence was also adduced by the accused. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the offence had been made out, which was confirmed by the

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.418 of 2012

¶32

lower appellate court.

¶33

When this revision petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that he does not wish to address this Court on the merits of the case and prays that some time may be granted to pay the compensation amount and also the substantial sentence may be reduced.

¶34

Even though the above submission is made, in order to ensure that there is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below, the judgments of the courts below were perused.

¶35

The complainant had examined PWs 1 and 2 and had produced Ext.P9 which is the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement executed by the accused. PW1 has spoken about the transaction and also about the presentation and dishonor of the cheque. It is noticed that the accused did not put forward any definite defense but only denied the transaction. Ext.P9 contains his signature

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.418 of 2012

¶38

and he had no answer for the same. Futher he had no explanation as to how the cheque containing his signature and drawn on his account has come into the possession of the complainant. No satisfactory explanation is offered regarding the possession of the cheque. On receipt of statutory notice also, he chose to remain silent which shows his culpability. It was the above facts and circumstances which persuaded the courts below to come to the conclusion that offence had been made out. There is nothing to show that the findings are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. No interference in the revisional jurisdiction is called for.

¶39

However it is felt that the sentence imposed by the courts below is very harsh. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that a lenient view ought to have been taken with regard to the sentence. Since the petitioner expresses his willingness to pay the amount, it will not cause any harm to the complainant, if the accused

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.418 of 2012

¶42

is granted some time to pay the amount.

¶43

In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentence imposed by the courts below is set aside and he is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay compensation of Rs.27,008-/ to the complainant within a period of one month from today, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶44

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶45

kkj

Raji A.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji A.S. v. State of Kerala

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

Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

T.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Santha Vs State of Kerala

P.R. Jayaram Vs Santhosh Kumar

Mini Vs State of Kerala

Mathew V.C. Vs a.S.Varghese