Dismissed

P.I.Nazar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/1191/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Kerala confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The accused was granted six months to pay Rs.3,00,000 compensation to the complainant, with deferred coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of court; six months time granted to pay Rs.3,00,000 compensation; coercive steps deferred.

P.I.Nazar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1191 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRA 68/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM

¶7

ST 52/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KANJIRAPPALLY

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

P.I.NAZAR,

¶10

S/O.IBRAHIM, PALLICKAL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., NEAR CMS L.P.SCHOOL, VECHOOCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2. C.G.THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 56, OALICKAL HOUSE, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., NEDUMKAVU VAYAL, ERUMELY, PIN-686509.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER SMT.C.P.PRETTY

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sdr/-

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1191 of 2017

¶20

----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.52 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kanjirappally, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein.

¶23

The trial court, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 29.3.2016, had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in default of payment thereof, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The appellate court concerned (Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kottayam), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 27.7.2017, had dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court .

¶24

It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts

¶25

: :2::

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1191/17

¶27

below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard Sri.P.I.Georgekutty (Puthanangady), learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.Sunny Xavier, learned counsel appearing for R2/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R1/State.

¶29

Sri.P.I.Georgekutty, (Puthanangady), learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, submits on the basis of instructions from his party that the petitioner is not challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned conviction in this case and would only pray that the substantive sentence of six months' simple imprisonment may be set aside and six months' time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the fine/compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/directly to the complainant.

¶30

In the light of the abovesaid submissions, the following directions and orders are passed :

¶31

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

¶32

(ii) The impugned substantive sentence of six months' simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner will stand reduced and modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The petitioner shall also pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357(3) of

¶33

: :3::

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.1191/17

¶35

the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶36

(iii) The petitioner is given six months' time to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- directly to the complainant. Upon receiving such payments, the complainant will issue necessary receipts evidencing such payments in order to enable the accused to produce the same before the trial court to satisfy the said court about such payments.

¶37

(v) The petitioner shall personally appear before the trial court at 11 A.M. on any day on or before 19.5.2018 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and to satisfy the said court about payment of the total compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- directly to the complainant. On default of the petitioner to appear before the trial court or to pay the abovesaid amount, he will have to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶38

(vi) Until 19.5.2018, all further coercive steps for execution of the impugned sentence in this case will stand deferred.

¶39

The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court

¶40

for necessary information.

¶41

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Revision Petition will stand finally disposed of.

¶42

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶43

csl

P.I.Nazar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.I.Nazar v. State of Kerala

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

M/S Prolific Contracting Services Vs State of Kerala

Chelladurai Vs Suresh Kumar (Biju)

G.Saseendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba Anil Vs Mr. M.G.Sebastian

C.T.Kuriakose Vs Joseph

P.V. Thomas Vs C.C.Mathan