Alikkatu Veettil Musthafa v. the State of Kerala
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court modified an appellate order in a cheque dishonour case requiring the petitioner to deposit a substantial amount to suspend sentence, deeming the initial sum unfair and setting a lower, equitable limit with a modified bail condition.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner ordered to deposit ₹2,50,000 within three months; sentence suspended on executing bond with two sureties for ₹50,000.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 6384 of 2017 ()
CRA.135/2017 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.780/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG
PETITIONER:
ALIKKATU VEETTIL MUSTHAFA, S/O K.K. MUHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, F VILLA, SHUALI HOUSE, KAVUNTHALA, NEAR GOLDEN HOUSE, P.O. PADANNA, PADANNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.P.N.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's conditions for suspending the sentence by requiring a large deposit and security under Section 138 of the NI Act are enforceable.
Whether insisting on huge financial security for bail/sentence suspension violates the principles of equality under Article 21 of the Constitution in cheque dishonour cases.
Whether the impugned order can be modified to fix a reasonable amount and period for bond deposit and security while suspending the sentence.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
ALIKKATU VEETTIL MUSTHAFA
- respondent
THE STATE OF KERALA
- respondent
PUTHALATH MUHAMMEDKUNHI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court