Partly allowed

Shaji Joseph v. M/S. Vikas Hire Purchase Company Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Jun 2015Crl.Rev.Pet/695/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction for cheque dishonour but modified the harsh sentence of three months' imprisonment to one day conditional on payment of enhanced compensation of Rs. 70,000, citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the civil nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court, conditional upon payment of enhanced compensation of Rs. 70,000 within three months; default imprisonment for two months i

Shaji Joseph Vs M/S. Vikas Hire Purchase Company Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 695 of 2015 (E1)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 167/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 13-11-2002

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 408/1998 of J.F.C.M.COURT-III, KOTTAYAM DATED 06-04-2001

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.C.C.JOSEPH, CHITTAKKATTIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1. M/S. VIKAS HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY PVT. LTD., KANNAMPURAM BUILDING, KOTTAYAM, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,

¶13

M.RADHAKRISHNAN, GENERAL MANAGER.

¶14

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OKB

¶18

K.HARILAL, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.695 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2015.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No.167/2001 on the files of the court of Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C.No.408/1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam. According to the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months only.

¶23

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions which were

¶24

Crl.R.P.695/15 :2:

¶25

raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The learned counsel urged for a reappreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The revision petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence or illegality or impropriety in the findings whereby the trial court convicted him.

¶26

The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1^st respondent had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the revision petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1^st respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1^st respondent was a legally enforceable debt and Ext.P2 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt.

¶27

This Court is satisfied that the courts below had meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. I

¶28

Crl.R.P.695/15 :3:

¶29

do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived at. Therefore, I am not inclined to reappreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.

¶30

At last, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned counsel further sought for some time to pay the compensation as he is unable to raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds.

¶31

Similarly, the substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is too harsh and excessive. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged for reducing the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months imposed on the revision petitioner in view of the decisions laid down by the Apex Court as regards the nature and gravity of

¶32

Crl.R.P.695/15 :4:

¶33

the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶34

The Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore (AIR 2011 SC 2566), held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Further, in Vijayan v. Baby (2011(4) KLT 355), Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.

¶35

In supersession of the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months will stand reduced and modified to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court provided that the revision petitioner will pay

¶36

Crl.R.P.695/15 :5:

¶37

enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the 1^st respondent within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the revision petitioner will stand sentenced as follows:

¶38

The revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court.

¶39

He shall pay an enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) to the 1^st respondent/complainant within three months from today.

¶40

He shall appear before the trial court to suffer the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered above on or before 09/9/2015 with sufficient proof to show payment of compensation.

¶41

In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶42

The Criminal revision petition is disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

okb.

Shaji Joseph v. M/S. Vikas Hire Purchase Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Joseph v. M/S. Vikas Hire Purchase Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

Chakyayi Rajan Vs Mandayil Rugmini

Ahammed Vs Mammathu

Abdul Rasheed Vs Jabbar Abdul Rahman

P.Bhaskaran Vs the Managing Director

Mukri Rahmath Vs Mattookkarathi Abdul Rahiman

Suhara Vs Manajeri Housing Co-Opertive Society