Allowed

M/S.Integrated Finance Co. v. Sasi.P.

Kerala HC24 May 2013Crl.Rev.Pet/2063/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's fine under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding the original fine disproportionate to the cheque amount, the court set aside the sentence and increased the fine to Rs. 20,000, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the remedy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned sentence was set aside and a fine of Rs. 20,000 was imposed instead.

M/S.Integrated Finance Co. Vs Sasi.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2013/3RD JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2063 of 2003

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 192/2001 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -V, TVM (SPL.COURT-MARKLIST CASES) DATED 11-04-2003.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

1. M/S.INTEGRATED FIANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY VINEETH BEN, RECOVERY EXECUTIVE, M/S.INTEGRATED FIANCE COMPNAY. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAMBRANCH, KARIMPANAL STATUE AVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.R.JAGADISH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. SASI.R., S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANNOORKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALACODU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR BY SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

K.HARILAL, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2003 = = = = = = ==== = = = =

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.192/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V (Special court for mark list cases), Thiruvananthapuram. The Revision petitioner has filed the above complaint alleging offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the 1^st respondent herein.

¶21

It is the case of the Revision petitioner that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt due to the Revision petitioner, the 1^st respondent issued a cheque dated 10/09/2000 for a sum of Rs.13,863/-(Rupees Thirteen thousand Eight hundred and Sixty Three only) drawn on M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Vattappara branch, Thiruvananthapuram. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured and returned for

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2003 2

¶23

want of sufficient funds. Though the Revision petitioner had issued a statutory notice demanding the cheque amount and the 1^st respondent had received the same, no amount had been paid towards the cheque amount. Hence, he filed the above complaint. After trial, the 1^st respondent was found guilty u/s 138 of the N.I.Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,500/(Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount, if realised will be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. This revision is filed challenging inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court.

¶24

In this Revision petition, it is contended that the sentence passed by the court below is insufficient and disproportionate with the nature and gravity of the offence. So sentence is seen passed in defiance statutory mandate u/s 138 of the N.I.Act. The punishment provided in the

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2003

¶26

¶27

statute is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to twice the cheque amount or with both. A bare reading of the penal provision itself shows that the fine amount may extent to twice the cheque amount or with both. But in the instant case, contrary to the intention of the legislature, the court below imposed half of the cheque amount only as fine. Therefore, the sentence passed by the trial court is illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶28

The only question to be considered in this Revision petition is whether the sentence imposed on the 1^st respondent by the trial court for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I.Act is justifiable. As rightly contended in the Revision petition, the maximum fine that can be imposed for an offence u/s 138 may extent to twice of the cheque amount. But here, the fine amount is only Rs.7,500/(Rupees Seven thousand Five hundred only) when the cheque amount is Rs.13,863/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2003

¶30

¶31

Eight hundred and Sixty Three only). Apparently, in view of the mandate under the statute, the sentence imposed on the 1^st respondent is inadequate and disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. So at any view, the sentence imposed on the 1^st respondent is not justifiable.

¶32

The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice (AIR 2011 SC 2566). The direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic [Vijayan vs. Baby 2011(4) KLT 355] . So in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.

¶33

In the light of the decisions quoted above, I am inclined to set aside the sentence imposed on the 1^st

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2003

¶35

¶36

respondent and I do so. In supersession of the sentence passed by the trial court, the 1^st respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) and the same shall be given to the Revision petitioner, in default of payment of fine, the 1^st respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶37

This Revision petition is allowed accordingly.

¶38

K.HARILAL, JUDGE.

¶39

Stu

¶40

//True copy//

¶41

P.A to Judge.

M/S.Integrated Finance Co. v. Sasi.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Integrated Finance Co. v. Sasi.P.

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

Ramankutty Vs the Excise Inspector

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs K. Muhammed

Gopakumar Vs Basil Baby

Kelappan C.T. Vs Bhaskaran

M/S.Polynsis Immigration Vs State of Kerala

Dietz Gen Credo Sooner Vs State of Kerala