Partly allowed

C.P.Abdul Hameed v. Saidali

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/754/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition partly. It held that the concurrent finding of conviction was not perverse. However, it reduced the sentence from the one passed below to imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 with 3 months simple imprisonment in default.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed partly; imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded; simple imprisonment for three months in default.

C.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Saidali — 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

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 754 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 66/2013 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 145/2012 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

C.P.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.ALIKOYA, CHAKKIRAKAD PARAMBA,

¶10

MAHOTTAM, ARAKKINAR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673028.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH

¶12

SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

SAIDALI, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, SHIN, KOTTARAM ROAD,

¶15

ERANJIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ,

¶19

SMT.M.SHAJNA AND ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 754 of 2014

¶23

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The accused in C.C. No. 145 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, has 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, 1981.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner issued Ext. P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued which was accepted by the revision petitioner.

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

Crl.R.P. No. 754 of 2014

¶30

However, the revision petition did not pay the cheque amount.

¶31

Before the trial Court, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked for the prosecution. DW1 was examined on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶32

The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material is available before the Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence of concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction passed by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

Crl.R.P. No. 754 of 2014

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext. P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a compensation of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and in default to simple imprisonment for three months, to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly, I order so. In the event of realisation of the compensation amount, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶36

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above. The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the compensation.

¶37

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶38

Ani/ 29-09-2016

¶39

/true copy/

¶40

P.S. to Judge

C.P.Abdul Hameed v. Saidali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Abdul Hameed v. Saidali

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

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Excise Inspector

M. Sam Vs K. Robinson

Abdulla Kurikkal Vs Mampallil Abdurahim

Mukundan @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Valsan Vs the State of Kerala