This order recalls a previous sentence order to accord the petitioner time to pay compensation. Conviction for cheque dishonour is confirmed but imprisonment is set aside; fine is fixed with a deadline to pay to avoid three months jail.
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 V.K.MOHANAN
MONDAY, THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/8TH MAGHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 220 of 2013 ()
CRA.411/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, DATED 26.12.2012. ST.120/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,CHANGANACHERRY, DATED 30.9.2011
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ROY VARGHESE
S/O.VARGHESE,PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,THURUTHY POST CHANGANACHERRY-686 104.
BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S):
1. JAMES T.MOOLAYIL
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.K.K.RAJIV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2013, THE COURT ON 01.02.2013, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.R.P.No.220 of 2013
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2013.
O R D E R
At the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the
above matter posted today for “To Be Spoken To”. According to the counsel, he could not brought to my notice about the ailment and surgery undergone by the petitioner and thus he submits that the petitioner need some breathing time to receive the sentence. Accordingly, the order dated 28.1.2013 is recalled and the revision petition is disposed of passing the following fresh order.
2
Crl.R.P.No.220 of 2013
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kottayam.
3
Crl.R.P.No.220 of 2013
the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, the said submission requires positive consideration, especially in the light of the above decision of the Honourable Apex Court.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the court below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below against the petitioner is set aside. While confirming the sentence of fine, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount within 45 days from today, and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 18/03/2013. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount within the time stipulated, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to realise the fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, the same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation
4
Crl.R.P.No.220 of 2013
under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till, 18/03/2013 .
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already deposited 50,000/- in the trial court as per the direction issued by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence. If that be so, and the said amount is retained in the trial court, the petitioner is entitled to get credit of that deposit. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner needs to deposit a further sum of 1,50,000/- towards the fine amount.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused for cheque dishonour should be set aside to allow payment of compensation.
Whether prior deposit of funds can be credited towards the total fine required under the order.
What is the appropriate course when the accused is ready to compensate but currently facing immediate sentence of imprisonment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ROY VARGHESE
JAMES T.MOOLAYIL
STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
