Partly allowed

P. Chandran v. Vijayan

Kerala HC11 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/545/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an accused's criminal revision against his conviction for cheque dishonour. While the conviction was confirmed, the imprisonment sentence was modified to a fine of ₹1,50,000 payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of simple imprisonment replaced with a fine of ₹1,50,000 payable to the complainant within three months.

P. Chandran Vs Vijayan — 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 545 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.Appeal 148/2012 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ST 4/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, VADAKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

P. CHANDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS

¶9

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KAYANADATH HOUSE, KARUVAYIL POST VATAKARA THALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

VIJAYAN T.K., AGED 61 YEARS S/O. KELAPPAN, THIRUVOTH KUNIYIL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM KANNUKKARA, VATAKARA THALUK PIN-673308.

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABDU RAHEEM

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.545 of 2014

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of March 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.4 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vadakara challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was 1,50,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay compensation of 1,50,000/to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Crl. Appeal No.148 of 2012 filed before the

¶23

:2:

¶24

Crl.R.P. No.545 of 2014

¶25

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vatakara was

¶26

dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed

¶27

this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Court and the appellate court.

¶31

The courts below have concurrently held that the

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.R.P. No.545 of 2014

¶34

conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error,

¶35

illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded

¶36

concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.

¶37

In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.

¶38

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 1,50,000/would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,50,000/- 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

¶39

Crl.R.P. No.545 of 2014

¶40

:4:

¶41

directly pay the compensation to the complainant within three 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.

¶42

In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶45

dl/

¶46

// TRUE COPY //

¶47

PA TO JUDGE

P. Chandran v. Vijayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Chandran v. Vijayan

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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Riyas Vs Abdul Rahiman

Anitha Alex Vs v.G.Mathew

Mohanlal Vs Sasidharan

Ajifer Vs State of Kerala