Allowed

Jaimon K.A. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/535/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition by confirming the accused's conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence. Accommodating the compensatory aspect emphasized in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, the court reduced the imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 1,35,000 payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed but the conviction confirmed. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,35,000 as compensation instead of imprisonment, payable within ten months.

Jaimon K.A. 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 M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 535 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL. APPEAL NO.144/2012 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE/ ADDITIONAL

¶7

SESSIONS JUDGE - III,, KOTTAYAM

¶8

ST 89/2011 of J.M.F.C. IV, KOTTAYAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶10

JAIMON K.A., S/O.K.C.ABRAHAM,

¶11

KUNNEL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

M/S.WIN CASTLE CHITS PVT. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE : KARAKKATTU BUILDING, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MIDHUN T. ABRAHAM, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKADU P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.535 of 2014

¶20

----------------------------------------------Dated 10^th March, 2014

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No.89/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - IV, Kottayam, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was 1,32,287/- In the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of 1,35,000/and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine, if realized was ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation. The appeal filed as Cr.Appeal No.144 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge - III, Kottayam was dismissed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.535 of 2014

¶26

¶27

Court and the appellate court.

¶28

The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the Revision petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.

¶29

In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.535 of 2014

¶31

¶32

view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of 1,35,000/would meet the ends of justice <mark>. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,35,000/-. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within ten months from today and to produce a memo to that effect before the trial court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The amount if any deposited in the trial court by the accused can be given credit to.

¶33

In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶36

tgs

¶37

(true copy)

Jaimon K.A. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaimon K.A. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganeshan K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Shivakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shivakumar Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Riyas Vs Abdul Rahiman