High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition, confirming convictions and sentences below for a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act. The Court granted two months to pay the fine.
Petitioner granted two months' time to pay the fine; conviction and sentence confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 458 of 2012 ()
(JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2011 IN CRA.285/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC NO.1), KOTTAYAM).
(JUDGMENT DATED 03.06.2010 IN ST.270/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. II, CHENGANACHERRY )
PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
HARIKUMAR , VIJAYAMANDIRAM, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE :
1. THE KOTTAYM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PAKKIL, KOTTAYAM.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AMV
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------Crl.RP No.458 of 2012
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2012
Order
The accused 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
till the rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with a default clause of simple imprisonment for fifteen days. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
Cr.RP 458/12
2
to the accused invoked no response. The amount remained unpaid and therefore, a complaint was filed.
trial court and summons was issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty. Evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P14 from the side of the complainant. After close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. The accused examined DW1 and had Ext.D1marked.
Cr.RP 458/12
3
Cr.RP 458/12
4
was issued to the complainant in discharge of the debt due to it. Apart from the above facts, it has to be noticed that the accused has not chosen to reply to the statutory notice issued to him by the complainant. If the accused had a case that the blank cheque issued by him has been misused by the complainant, he would have immediately responded to the notice issued to him. But, he chose to keep silent. Both the courts below have considered the evidence in the case and have come to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the accused is not sufficient to establish the defence set up by him. The findings are essentially based on appreciation of evidence in the case. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court to show that the findings are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. No grounds are made out warranting interference with the conviction and sentence as ordered by the courts below and the revision petition is only to be dismissed.
Cr.RP 458/12
5
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta
Cr.RP 458/12 6
Cr.RP 458/12 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition begs interference with conviction and sentence as orders below are perverse or unwarranted by evidence.
Whether the accused could establish a defence regarding misuse of blank cheque after failing to reply to statutory notice.
Whether time should be granted to the petitioner to pay the fine imposed on him.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harikumar
The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank
The State of Kerala
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
