Dismissed

Anil C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/543/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court modified the sentence, reducing the compensation/fine to Rs. 30,000 to meet the compensatory aspect of the remedy as per Damodar S. Prabhu.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 30,000 payable as compensation within six months with default imprisonment.

Anil C. 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

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 543 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl. Appeal 171/2011 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CC 852/2008 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIL C., AGED 38 YEARS

¶9

S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MANCHADIYIL VEEDU, THEVARTHOTTAM ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DIST

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶11

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶14

K K BABU (NO MORE) KUZHIYATHU VILLA, KARAVALOOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK REP BY BABIN BABU, S/O.LALE K K BABU, KUZHIYATHU VILLA KARAVALOOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.543 of 2014

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of March 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.852 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Punalur challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was `30,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

¶23

three months and to pay a compensation of `30,000/- to PW1Babin Babu, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Crl. Appeal No.171 of 2011 filed before the 1^st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam was partly allowed upholding the judgment of conviction of the trial court. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple

¶24

:2:

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.543 of 2014

¶26

imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of `40,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against that judgment the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶27

I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the public prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court.

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.R.P. No.543 of 2014

¶31

:3:

¶32

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.

¶33

In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.

¶34

Sayed Babalal H (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 view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of 30,000/would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 30,000/- under Section 138 of the NI Act. 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

¶35

Crl.R.P. No.543 of 2014

¶36

:4:

¶37

directly pay the compensation to PW1- Babin Babu within six 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.

¶38

In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of

¶39

confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶42

dl/

¶43

// TRUE COPY //

Anil C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil C. 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

Ajifer Vs State of Kerala

Binesh Vs State of Kerala

Shehla Vs State of Kerala

Jose @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Anandan Pillai Vs State of Kerla

Pauly and Another Vs State of Kerala