Partly allowed

V.K.Dharmadas v. Shaji

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3165/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed one revision petition and partly allowed another. Upholding convictions for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, the court modified sentences for specific accused, reducing them to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,35,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Sentence against accused Nos. 2 and 4 modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,35,000 each. Ten months granted for compensation compliance.

V.K.Dharmadas Vs Shaji — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3165 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 150/2008 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CC 870/2003 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

V.K.DHARMADAS, AGED 63 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.KARAPPAN, VENNEGOTT HOUSE,, VENKITANGA POST, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

SHAJI, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNANAGAKKAL HOUSE, VENKITANGU AMSOM, VENKITANGU DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, VENKITANGU P.O., PIN 680 510.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C K PRASAD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRRP. 4077/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. Nos.3165 of 2010 and

¶19

4077 of 2009

¶20

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22^nd November 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced

¶23

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for

¶24

short 'the N.I.Act') by the courts below.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

No material has been brought to the notice of this

¶27

court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision

¶28

Crl.R.P.3165/2010 & 4077/2099

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

petitioners committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶31

As regards the sentence, the revision petitioner in

¶32

Crl.R.P. No.3165 of 2010, who is the third accused was awarded imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,35,000/- by the appellate court. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the appellate court against the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.3165 of 2010 does not call for any interference by this court. The sentence awarded by the appellate court against the first accused also does not call for any interference by this court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below against accused Nos.2 and 4 can be modified

¶33

Crl.R.P.3165/2010 & 4077/2099

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and

¶36

a fine of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for two months each, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so.

¶37

If the compensation is realised from the third accused, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. If the fine is realised from the other accused, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶38

In the result, Crl.R.P.No.3165 of 2010 stands dismissed and Crl.R.P. No.4077 of 2009 stands allowed in part as above. However, revision petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.R.P. No.4077 of 2009 and the revision petitioner in

¶39

Crl.R.P.3165/2010 & 4077/2099

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

Crl.R.P. No.3165 of 2010 are granted ten months to pay the

¶42

compensation.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dl/.27.10..2016

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

V.K.Dharmadas v. Shaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Dharmadas v. Shaji

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

Aji Vs State

Anto Issac @ Antony Vs State of Kerala

Kajamoideen Vs State of Kerala

Kolateri Purushothaman Vs P.B.Mohan Kumar

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala