High Court confirmed conviction under s.138 NI Act. Granted breathing time to pay compensation to modify sentence. Petitioner confirmed but granted time to wipe liability.
Conviction confirmed. Breathing time granted to pay Rs.50,000. Imprisonment till rising of court if not paid.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 604 of 2016 ()
------------------------------CRA 338/2014 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN CC 873/2007 of J.M.F.C.,KATTAKADA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
G.RAMACHANDRAN
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KOVILAVAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.10/993, MANNAMMOOLA, PEROORKADA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LILLY LESSLY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. J
ORDER
the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the accused in C.C.873 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kattakkada, challenges the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. The cheque amount is Rs.50,000/-. As per judgment dated 8.10.2014, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant u/s 357(3) of the Cr.P.C and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The appeal preferred by the
Crl.R.P.604/16
2
petitioner as Crl.A.338 of 2014 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, modifying the sentence of imprisonment for three months to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
the petitioner.
to assail the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The Courts below have held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. Both the Courts concurrently found in favour of the complainant as regards the transaction
Crl.R.P.604/16
3
of borrowal and also the execution and delivery of the cheque. It was also found that the petitioner/accused had failed to make payment within 15 days on receipt of statutory notice. Both the Courts below have considered and rejected the defence set up by the respondents while entering his conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. This Court sitting in the revisional jurisdiction will not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. I find no illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the Courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.
Crl.R.P.604/16
4
Appellate Court has modified the sentence and the petitioner has been directed to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was given a time of one month to make the payment. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has fervently requested that time of six months be granted to pay off the amount. After having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the fervent request made by the learned counsel, I find that a breathing time can be given to the petitioner to wipe out the liability.
5. Accordingly, the conviction against the
petitioner is confirmed. In modification of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner is granted a breathing time to wipe off the amount
Crl.R.P.604/16
5
due to the 1st respondent. Consequently this revision petition will stand disposed of subject to the following terms:-
(i). The Revision Petitioner shall appear before
the Trial Court on or before 4.9.2016 and undergo imprisonment till rising of the court.
(ii). The Revision Petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the 1st respondent/complainant as compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C. on or before the said date. Any amount deposited by the petitioner before the competent courts shall be given credit to and the balance alone needs to be paid as compensation or fine, as the case may be. The complainant shall be entitled to realise such deposit from the court. In case of direct payment, receipts evidencing the
Crl.R.P.604/16
6
payment shall be produced before the trial court on the date of appearance. In the alternative, the revision petitioner may also deposit the amount due before the trial court.
(iii). In default, the Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge
Mrcs/4.5.2016
//True Copy//
P.S.To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts on the facts of cheque dishonour.
Whether the revisionist is entitled to a modification of the sentence by granting breathing time for payment.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
G Ramachandran
G Varghese
Raja Vijayaraghavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
