Revision petitioner challenged conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. High Court found no reason to interfere with lower courts and confirmed both conviction and sentence.
Revision petition dismissed; six months time granted to pay compensation and fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 613 of 2014 ()
Crl.Appeal 547/2010 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST 561/2007 of J.M.F.C.-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
SIVAM, NO.1, TRANS INDIA ENCLAVE TKD ROAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER / DIRECTOR MR.B.SATHISH NAIR (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SATHISH KUMAR)
MANAGING PARTNER / DIRECTOR TRANS INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS, SIVAM, NO.1 TRANS INDIA ENCLAVE, TKD ROAD, MARAPPALAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT MANOVETH VEEDU, HOUSE NO.30/1 PANICKERS LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI THOMAS J AMBOOKEN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.613 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of March 2014
ORDER
This Criminal revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.561 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the NI Act'). The total amount of 3 cheques was `41,250/-. The trial court convicted both the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and the first
accused was sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000/-. The second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and was directed to pay a compensation of 50,000/-
Crl.R.P. No.613 of 2014
and in default of payment, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Against that conviction and sentence, both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.547 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court - II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was allowed in part. The conviction of the accused was confirmed and the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months was set aside. The sentence directing payment of compensation and the default sentence was confirmed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.
and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and appellate court. Both the courts below rejected the contentions by giving cogent reasons. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both
Crl.R.P. No.613 of 2014
the courts below and confirm the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since the appellate court awarded only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. Six months time is granted to the accused in S.T. No.561 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram to pay the compensation and fine.
Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)
dl/
// TRUE COPY //
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence on a second appeal regarding cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court is reasonable and requires modification.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S.TRANS INDIA CONSTRUCTION
B.SATHEESH NAIR
SUSEELA MATHEW
STATE OF KERALA
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
