Partly allowed

G.Krishna Kumar v. Dr.Raj Kumar Samuel

Kerala HC20 Sept 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/1113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case. Post-conviction settlement where the accused agreed to pay Rs. 65,000. The court set aside the imprisonment sentence and substituted it with a fine payment of Rs. 65,000 to the complainant within six weeks, directing the trial court to proceed with execution only o

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment set aside; substituted with fine of Rs. 65,000 payable within six weeks; execution deferred pending payment.

G.Krishna Kumar Vs Dr.Raj Kumar Samuel — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1113 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRA 22/2015 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM ST 47/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, KOLLAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶8

-------------------------------------

¶9

G.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶10

S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 61 YEARS, KRISHNAGEETH, HOUSE NO 150,KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, CANAL ROAD, KALLUPPALAM, KOLLAM 691 001

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶13

-------------------------------------------

¶14

1. DR.RAJ KUMAR SAMUEL VELIYILPUTHEN VEEDU, DOOR NO 229, KADAPPAKADA P.O, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KOLLAM 691 008

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

================== Crl.R.P.No. 1113 of 2017

¶22

==================

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2017 O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the accused in Summary Trial Case, S.T.No. 47/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 4.8.2014 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,65,000/-, out of which, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Cr.P.C. with the default sentence clause of 3 months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.22/2015 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kollam). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 30.12.2016 had upheld the conviction and had also confirmed the sentence, thereby dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

After due service of notice, Sri.S.Sreekumar (Kollam),

¶26

Crl.R.P.1113/17 - : 2 :-

¶27

Advocate, has taken notice for R-1 (complainant). P.P. has already taken notice for R-2 State. Service complete.

¶28

Heard Sri.B.Mohan Lal (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.S.Sreekumar (Kollam), learned Advocate appearing for R-1 (complainant), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

¶29

Apart from the various contentions on the merits of the matter, Sri.B.Mohan Lal (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) would submit that as evident from para 15 of the impugned appellate judgment, during the pendency of the said criminal appeal, the matter was referred to the mediation centre and thereupon, both sides had agreed to settle the matter, whereby the complainant was to pay Rs.60,000/- within 3 months in full and final settlement of all the liabilities in the instant case, but that as the petitioner was suffering from serious heart ailments and other serious ailments, like ulcer, hipper tension, diabetics, etc., he was not in a position to raise the money and therefore could not effect the payment and that in these circumstances, the appellate court had proceeded to consider the matter on merits and further that the accused is now in a position to settle the disputes by paying Rs.65,000/- within one month from today. Sri.S.Sreekumar (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent (complainant) would submit on the basis of the

¶30

Crl.R.P.1113/17 - : 3 :-

¶31

instructions of his party that his party is willing to accept the said offer, provided the full amount of Rs.65,000/- is paid at least within an outer time limit of 6 weeks from today. In these circumstances, Sri.B.Mohan Lal (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) submits on the basis of the instructions of his party that the petitioner is not challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned conviction in this case and that this Court may pass appropriate orders disposing of the revision petition in the light of the consensus now reached between the parties and in the light of the undertaking made by the petitioner that he would pay the abovesaid amount of Rs.65,000/- directly to the complainant, without any further delay. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued:

¶32

(i) The impugned conviction imposed on the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will stand confirmed.

¶33

(ii) The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months imposed in this case will stand set aside.

¶34

(iii) In supersession of the orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced only to pay a fine of Rs.65,000/-, which is disbursable as compensation to the complainant in terms of Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner is given time by six weeks from 1.10.2017 to pay the abovesaid amount directly to the complainant. Any such payment directly paid by the accused to the complainant will be treated as those amounts have been paid as fine and then disbursed to the complainant as compensation in terms of Sec. 357 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

¶36

(v) On receiving such payments, the complainant will issue necessary receipts to the accused so that the accused can produce the same before the trial court to satisfy the said court about payment of such amount. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent (complainant) has undertaken that the complainant on receiving the said amount will file a memo through his counsel before the trial court for acknowledging the said payment.

¶37

(vi) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 18.11.2017 to satisfy the said court about the payment of the abovesaid amount of Rs. 65,000/- directly to the complainant.

¶38

Crl.R.P.1113/17 - : 4 :-

¶39

(vii) On default of payment of the said amount as directed above, the petitioner will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶40

(viii) Until 18.11.2017 all further coercive steps that may be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the execution of the impugned sentence in this case will stand deferred.

¶41

(ix) On default of the petitioner either to appear before the trial court on 18.11.2017 or on default to pay the abovesaid amount, the trial court will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶42

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Criminal

¶43

Revision Petition stands finally disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

sdk+

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

///True Copy///

¶48

P.S. to Judge

G.Krishna Kumar v. Dr.Raj Kumar Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Krishna Kumar v. Dr.Raj Kumar Samuel

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

Muhammed Aslam Vs v.Manoj Kumar

Mani C Vs State of Kerala

Alikkatu Veettil Musthafa Vs the State of Kerala

Babin Kumar K. Vs N.A. Pradeep Kumar

Shakkira Aboobacker Vs U.Chekkutty

P.J.Kunjumon Vs Edwin Tomson