Dismissed

P.Ravi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/1232/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence. Court held no illegality or impropriety in lower courts' findings or evidence appraisal, finding no perversity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of fine Rs. 20,000 with two months simple imprisonment in default.

P.Ravi Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/2ND KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1232 of 2006 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 139/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK-II, PATHANAMTHITTA CC 491/2002 of C.J.M. COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P. RAVI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, MUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR P.O., KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. JOSHUA JOSE, KOCHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KAIPPATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JIBU P. THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OKB

¶16

K.HARILAL, J

¶17

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

¶18

Crl. R.P. No.1232 of 2006

¶19

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No.139/04 on the files of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Pathanamthitta. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C.No.491/02 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. According to the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- would paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶23

Crl.R.P.1232/06 :2:

¶24

The allegations in the complaint are as follows:- The accused owed an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and in discharge of the said debt the accused issued a cheque bearing No.MSP/XX/KA 379322 dated 30.4.2002 from his account maintained at the Kurathikad branch of the State Bank of Travancore. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through the Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta branch. The cheque was returned as dishonoured by the drawee bank with a memo stating that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a registered lawyer notice dated 18.6.2002 to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice; but, it was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed returned to sender”. In spite of the statutory notice served as above, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Thus, he is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶25

The accused in defence pleaded not guilty and contended that no amount was due from him to the complainant and that he had owed 775 Ryals equivalent to Rs.8,800/- to the brother of the complainant and he had realised it through the

¶26

Crl.R.P.1232/06 :3:

¶27

police of Saudi Arabia and due to the said animosity the complainant had forced him to go to police station and issue the cheque.

¶28

To prove the complainant's case, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the accused in defence. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial court found that the complainant had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque by the accused in his favour. In cross-examination, nothing brought out to discredit the said evidence of the complainant. Though in 313 statement the accused had taken a defence that he was constrained to issue the cheque at the instance of police, no evidence had been adduced to substantiate the possibility of the said contention. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the defence version, the trial court found that the accused miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 and 118(a) of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the complainant.

¶29

In appeal, the Appellate Court also reappreciated the entire evidence on record and found that the accused miserably

¶30

Crl.R.P.1232/06 :4:

¶31

failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in the above finding and I do not find any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of conviction, I am not inclined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. Hence this Revision Petition will stand dismissed.

¶32

Sd/- ( K.HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶33

okb.

P.Ravi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravi v. 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

Radhakrishnan Nair Vs K.P.Suresh

Davis Mampilly Vs v.T.Thomas

The Superintending Engineer Vs M/S. Dora Infrastructure & Properties (P) Ltd.

V.P.Fakrudhin Vs State of Kerala

C.M.Johnson @ Johney Vs O.T.Ramachandran

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala