Partly allowed

Ameer Suthan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/460/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenged a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court confirmed the conviction and modified sentence but granted the appellant four months to pay the remaining compensation, recognizing his illness and prior partial payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence confirmed; granted four months time to pay the balance compensation amount after deducting earlier payment.

Ameer Suthan Vs the 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 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 460 of 2012 ()

¶5

CRL.A.NO.510/2010 of I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,KOLLAM S.T.NO.214/2009 of J.M.F.C. - III, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

AMEER SULTHAN, AJITHA MANZIL, BEACH EAST, PALLITHOTTAM P.O, KOLLAM- 691006.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶9

COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031.

¶11

2. THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Q 167, KOLLAM,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶13

P. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, ASHTAMUDI, KOLLAM- 691602.

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BBEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 460 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.12.2010 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.21,438/-

¶22

ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 28-04-2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ECO CARDIOGRAPH REPORT DATED 01.03.2011 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶29

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

¶30

Crl. R.P. No. 460 of 2012

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2012.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer

¶35

simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs.85,750/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as imprisonment for one day till rising of court and to pay compensation Rs.85,750/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

¶36

According to the complainant, the accused who was a shareholder of complainant's bank availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the bank. After remitting a few installments, the accused defaulted further payments. For discharging the

¶37

¶38

Crl. R.P. No. 460 of 2012

¶39

liability that was due from him, he had executed Ext.P2 cheque in

¶40

favour of the complainant. The cheque presented for encashment was returned want of funds in the account of the accused. A notice issued to the accused and it was returned with endorsement “addressee left place”. Since the amount remained unpaid, the complaint was laid.

¶41

Cognizance of the offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused, all formalities were complied with. Particulars of the offence were read out to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant therefore examined PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked.

¶42

After the close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the entire allegation and pointed out that when he availed of the loan, the complainant obtained 12 blank cheques. One of those cheques have been produced by the complainant in the present case. Though the accused was asked to enter on his defence, he did not adduce any evidence.

¶43

¶44

Crl. R.P. No. 460 of 2012

¶45

Both the courts below on evaluation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the offence had been made out. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence as already mentioned.

¶46

When the matter 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 pointed out that he only prays some time may be given to pay the compensation amount ordered by the lower appellate court. Documents have been produced to show that the revision petitioner is ailing from various ailments. The revision petitioner pointed out that he is ready and willing to pay the amount but only requires some time in view of his ailments.

¶47

The complainant had examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Ext.P8 is the true copy of the ledger statement of the loan account relating to the accused. Ext.P2 is the cheque issued by the accused. The complainant by adducing evidence as PW1 and by the documents produced is able to establish that the accused had availed a loan from the bank and he had failed to repay the instalments due from him. Even though the accused

¶48

¶49

Crl. R.P. No. 460 of 2012

¶50

had a case that 12 blank cheques were issued by him, no evidence was adduced by the accused to substantiate the said fact. It is significant to notice that the signature in the cheque is admitted. So also its issuance. There is no suggestion to PW1, that the particulars in the cheque were filled up by the complainant or someone else at the behest of the complainant.

¶51

Both the Courts below found the contentions of the

¶52

accused to be untenable for want of evidence in that regard. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed but sentence was modified. It is not shown that the findings are perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. No interference is called for regarding the finding of guilt.

¶53

The lower appellate Court has taken a lenient view regarding the sentence. But considering the fact that the petitioner has produced documents which show that he suffers from various ailments and also produced a receipt which shows that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.21,438/- before the trial court with regard to the cheque amount, it is felt just

¶54

¶55

Crl. R.P. No. 460 of 2012

¶56

and proper that he can be given some time to pay the balance amount.

¶57

In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate Court, the revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the compensation awarded by the lower appellate court after giving credit to the amount said to have been paid by the revision petitioner, failing which the default clause imposed by the lower appellate court shall take effect.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶60

Scl.

¶61

True Copy

¶62

PA to Judge

Ameer Suthan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameer Suthan v. the 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

Y.K.Anandhan Vs State of Kerala and Others

B.Musthafa Vs Irikoor Grama Panchayath and Another

N.v.Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy Vs C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late T.Alikoya

C.S.Santhosh Vs K.M.Shareefa

Gracy Earnest Vs N.G.Mary Elizabeth