Allowed

P.N. Prakash v. K.M. Rajendra & Another

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/566/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, the court modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 30,000 payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction confirmed; sentence modified to payment of fine Rs. 30,000 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.; three months default imprisonment if not paid.

P.N. Prakash Vs K.M. Rajendra & Another — 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 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 566 of 2014 ( )

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.753/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (AD HOC - I) KOTTAYAM

¶7

ST 495/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II(MOBILE),KOTTAYAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

P.N. PRAKASH, PAREKKALATHIL,

¶10

PULIKKUTTISSERY P.O., AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (MANNAR)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

K.M. RAJENDRAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R2, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR

¶18

,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.566 of 2014

¶22

----------------------------------------------Dated 17^th March, 2014

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No.495/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II(Mobile), Kottayam 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 Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay 30,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another one month. The appeal filed as Crl. Appeal No.753 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc - I), Kottayam was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for th e complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the revision

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.566/14

¶28

¶29

petitioner reiterated the same contentions raised before the trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the courts below.

¶30

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.

¶31

In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu

¶32

v. Sayed Babalal (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.566/14

¶34

¶35

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. <mark>Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 30,000/-. 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 two 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.

¶36

In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.566/14

¶38

¶39

imposed on the revision petitioner.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶42

tgs

¶43

(true copy)

P.N. Prakash v. K.M. Rajendra & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N. Prakash v. K.M. Rajendra & Another

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

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Raghunathan Vs K.Pratheesh

S.Gopakumar Vs Ashok Kumar.v.