Partly allowed

Susan George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/559/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala revised the sentence in a cheque dishonour case where the accused had been sentenced to imprisonment. The bench clarified that the compensatory aspect of Section 138 NI Act takes priority and substituted the imprisonment term with payment of fine equivalent to cheque amount.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is substituted with a fine of ₹26,23,000 payable as compensation within six months.

Susan George 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 559 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL 242/2009 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-1), PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

ST 697/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: :

¶9

SUSAN GEORGE

¶10

W/O.LATE GEORGE SAMUEL, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT ENNASSERIL VEEDU, P.O.CHANDANAPPALLY ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 648.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

ALEX SAMUEL

¶15

S/O.LATE SAMUEL, AGED 59 YEARS RESIDING AT KOPPARA HOUSE P.O., CHANDANAPPALLY, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA-689 648.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.559 of 2012

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of March 2014

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.697 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta challenging the conviction and sentence passed against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was 26,23,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of 26,23,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Crl. Appeal No.242 of 2009

¶25

:2:

¶26

Crl.R.P. No.559 of 2012

¶27

filed before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-

¶28

1), Pathanamthitta was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶29

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

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the revision

¶31

petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial

¶32

Court and the appellate court.

¶33

The courts below have concurrently held that the

¶34

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

¶35

the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said

¶36

Crl.R.P. No.559 of 2012

¶37

:3:

¶38

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.

¶39

In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.

¶40

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 26,23,000/would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 26,23,000/- 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

¶41

:4:

¶42

Crl.R.P. No.559 of 2012

¶43

directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and to produce a memo to that effect before the Trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, she 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.

¶44

In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of

¶45

confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence

¶46

imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶49

dl/

¶50

// TRUE COPY //

Susan George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susan George 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

Jose @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Anandan Pillai Vs State of Kerla

Pauly and Another Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Subramanyan Vs O.T.Philip