Partly allowed

Chandrasekharan v. Palode Co-Operative Agricultural

Kerala HC3 Sept 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/1563/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition in limine without admitting it to files, though it granted the accused three months to surrender and pay the sentence fine voluntarily to a cooperative bank for a cheque bounce case.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed in limine; granted three months to surrender, serve sentence, and pay fine voluntarily.

Chandrasekharan Vs Palode Co-Operative Agricultural — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1563 of 2014

¶6

-------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.156/2013 of SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 16.7.2014

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.NO. 83/2011 of J.M.F.C.-IV, NEDUMANGAD DATED 6.3.2013

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

CHANDRASEKHARAN, PARAMBIL VEEDU, VALAKKUZHIPACHA, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.T.862, PIN 695604 REP. BY SECRETARY K.P.SURESH KUMAR.

¶13

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

¶14

ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Crl.R.P No.1563 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3^rd September, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T No.83 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Nedumangad. The trial court found him guilty, and on conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also directed to pay a fine of 24,192/- to₹ the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

¶22

When this revision came up for hearing on admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has no serious contest on facts, and that the revision petitioner will make payment within a reasonable time. The time sought is for three months.

¶23

Crl.R.P No.1563 of 2014

¶24

¶25

On a perusal of the case records, I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts. He examined himself and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents. The transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt, and also execution of Ext.P1 cheque stand well proved by the evidence of the complainant. Compliance of statutory requirements for prosecution also stands proved in this case. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that it was bounced on some other ground. Bouncing due to insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 document. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent in time, and the complaint was also filed in time by the complainant. I find no reason for interference in revision on the ground of any illegality or irregularity.

¶26

In the particular circumstances where the amount involved is 85,000/-, I am inclined to grant time for three₹ months for payment as requested by the learned counsel. The revision as such does not deserve admission to files.

¶27

Crl.R.P No.1563 of 2014

¶28

¶29

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for three months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of fine voluntarily, on failure of which, the trial court shall take steps to enforce the sentence, and recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.

¶30

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶31

¶32

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

Chandrasekharan v. Palode Co-Operative Agricultural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekharan v. Palode Co-Operative Agricultural

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

Lissy Vs State of Kerala

Anfar Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.C.Mujeeb Rahiman Vs Muhammed P.P

Fysal Eroth Vs N.P.C. Aboobacker

C. Ramesan Vs Salim.S.