Partly allowed

Thankachan M.K v. Riyas K.T

Kerala HC6 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/492/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It substituted the fine with a higher compensation amount payable to the complainant, imposing a default sentence of three months imprisonment in case of non-payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 1,25,000 payable as compensation within one month, with default imprisonment of three months.

Thankachan M.K Vs Riyas K.T — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/16TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 492 of 2012 ()

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 19.8.2011 IN CRA.236/2010 of SESIONS COURT, WAYANAD, C.C.NO.95 OF 2009 OF OF J.F.C.M COURT, KALPETTA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

THANKACHAN M.K., S/O.KOCHUKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS,

¶9

MARAMKOLLIL HOUSE, AZHIKKODAN NAGAR, VALAVAYAL POST, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

RIYAS K.T, S/O.MAMJMU, THOTOLI HOUSE,

¶13

PANOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, NOW WORKING AS MANAGER, AFFAS HOTEL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121.

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE) FOR R1

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2

¶17

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

¶18

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

---------------------------Crl.R.P.No.492 of 2012 ---------------------------Dated 6^th June, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶23

On the side of the complainant/first respondent herein, he was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the revision petitioner. After carefully appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the first respondent herein, and upon satisfying that all the ingredients to constitute an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been proved against the revision petitioner, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.492/2012 2

¶25

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted the appeal as Crl.A.No.236 of 2010. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the first respondent herein and considering the manner in which they were appreciated by the trial court the appellate court found no grounds warranting interference by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. To satisfy myself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings I have carefully considered the claims and contentions of the revision petitioner. When the revision petitioner fails to bring out grounds for invoking revisional jurisdiction this Court need not enter into a detailed discussion of the evidence or re-appreciation of the same. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

¶26

Now, what survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor on the said question. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 652 it would be permissible for this Court to slap a default sentence of imprisonment while awarding compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C.. In such circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed. However,

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.492/2012 3

¶28

in view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that a sentence with appropriate default sentence will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- within a period of one month from today which shall be paid as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the court below or to effect payment directly to the first respondent and to file a memo to that effect before the trial court. If the petitioner fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of a default sentence. In view of this order, warrant, if any, pending against the petitioner shall stand recalled.

¶29

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly, confirming the sentence but, modifying the sentence as above.

¶30

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶31

TKS

Thankachan M.K v. Riyas K.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankachan M.K v. Riyas K.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Satheesan Vs K.G.Mohanlal

Sikesh.P. Vs M/S. S.K. Food Processing

Basheer Kutty Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Chandran Vs K.G.Mohanlal

V.Surendran Vs Nancy Joseph

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala