Partly allowed

M/S.Maharaj Timber & Saw Mill v. P.Muhammed

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3035/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition filed by a firm and managing partner challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. The Court upheld the conviction but reduced confiscation as fine to Rs.9 lakh instead of compensation, confirming imprisonment sentence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; compensation reduced to fine of Rs.9,00,000; sentence of imprisonment confirmed;

M/S.Maharaj Timber & Saw Mill Vs P.Muhammed — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3035 of 2009 ( )

¶6

Crl.A 353/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI ST 21/2004 of J.M.F.C.-II(FOREST OFFENCES),MANJERI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶8

M/S.MAHARAJ TIMBER & SAW MILL PULLOTTU, KODUNGALLUR REP BY, POWER OF ATTORNEY SAMSUDHEEN,MANAGING PARTNER.

¶9

SHAMSUDHEEN S/O.SAYID MUHAMMED, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.MAHARAJ TIMBER & SAW MILL, PULLOTOTU, KODUNGALLUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

P.MUHAMMED PARAMBAN HOUSE, EDAVANNA PO, MANJERI VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.3035 of 2009

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27^th day of September 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.21 of 2004 on the

¶22

files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II

¶23

(Forest Offences), Manjeri, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

¶26

as follows:

¶27

The first accused is a firm and accused Nos.2 to 4

¶28

Crl.R.P.3035/2009

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

were the partners. Second revision petitioner was the

¶31

Managing Partner of the first revision petitioner firm. The de-facto complainant and the second revision petitioner were previously known to each other in connection with their timber business. While so, the second revision petitioner availed a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- for the timber business of the first revision petitioner firm with an undertaking to repay the amount within one month. Towards the discharge of the said liability, the second revision petitioner issued Exts.P1 to P3 cheques drawn from the account of the first revision petitioner firm. The said cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the first revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued on

¶32

Crl.R.P.3035/2009

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

behalf of the complainant which was received by the

¶35

revision petitioners. However, the cheque amount was not paid.

¶36

Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked for the complainant. DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D12 were marked for

¶37

the revision petitioners.

¶38

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No material has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of

¶39

Crl.R.P.3035/2009

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶42

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Exts.P1 to P3 cheques, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the appellate can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh only), to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court awarded against the second accused by the appellate court stands confirmed. If the fine is realised, the entire amount shall

¶43

Crl.R.P.3035/2009

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

be paid to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶46

To the above extent alone, the sentence awarded by the

¶47

appellate court stands modified.

¶48

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶49

part, as above.

¶50

The revision petitioners are granted six months to pay

¶51

the compensation.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

dl/27.9.2016

// True Copy //

PA to Judge

M/S.Maharaj Timber & Saw Mill v. P.Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maharaj Timber & Saw Mill v. P.Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramakrishnan Vs Food Inspector, Mannarkkad

P.M.Baby Vs Food Inspector, Kanhanged

P.M.Murugesan Vs Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad

C.P.Martin Vs Food Inspector, Mananthawady

Viswambaran Vs State of Kerala

Augustine @ Appachan Vs the State of Kerala