Disposed

Badharuddeen v. P.J. Joseph

Kerala HC29 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/842/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negociable Instruments Act. The imprisonment sentence was modified to time for payment, with default imprisonment if the fine was not paid within three months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment till rising of the court modified to time within three months to pay fine of Rs. 85,000/-; default sentence of one month imprisonment if fine not paid; appearance or

Badharuddeen Vs P.J. Joseph — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 842 of 2012

¶6

CRA.388/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),N.PARAVUR IN ST.84/2009 of J.M.F.C.- III, ALUVA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT:

¶8

BADHARUDDEEN

¶9

S/O. MOIDEENKUNJU, PROP. AUTO GUIDELINES, IST FLOOR ST. AUGUSTINE BUILDING, NEAR ST. ANTONY'S CHURCH KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. P.J. JOSEPH

¶13

KANNAYATH HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, EDAPALLY - 682 024.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.`

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MONY R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SHOBHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

Crl. R.P. No. 842 of 2012

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29^th day of October, 2012.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No. 84/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Aluva. The prosecution is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 85,000/- with a default sentence of one month. The petitioner's appeal as Crl. A. No. 388/2010 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, North Parur was dismissed. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶23

The petitioner today submits that the petitioner does not wish to prosecute the Criminal R.P. on merits but confines relief for time to pay the compensation amount. I have heard the counsel for the 1^st respondent also.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal R.P. is disposed of as follows:

¶25

The conviction is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is modified into one of imprisonment till the rising of the court. The Magistrate shall keep the execution of the sentence in abeyance for a period of three months within which time the petitioner shall pay the fine amount. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, on 30.01.2013. If the petitioner does not pay the fine amount, there would be a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.

¶26

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶27

Tds/

¶28

[True copy]

¶29

P.S to Judge.

Badharuddeen v. P.J. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badharuddeen v. P.J. Joseph

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

Babeesh Vs the Managing Director, Sidco

V.a.Sobhanakumari Vs Smt.Roopakala Jagath

T.Kallyani Vs Excise Inspector,Hosdurg Excise Range

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Pushpangadan Vs Suresh