Partly allowed

Sudheerkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/42/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While upholding the sentence, the Court granted the appellant four months to pay Rs. 90,000 compensation and deferred coercive steps pending payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence upheld; 4 months' time granted to pay Rs.90,000 compensation; coercive steps deferred.

Sudheerkumar 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 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 42 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO. 486/2012 OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED 14-06-2016. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC. NO.1272/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 24-07-2012.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

SUDHEERKUMAR,

¶9

AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. BODHANANDAN, KANDAMPULLY, KOZHIKULANGARA DESOM, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:-:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIKRISHNAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL, PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 501.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA).

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.42 Of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 16th day of January, 2017.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition for assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per the impugned judgment dated 24.7.2012 in C.C.No.1272/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad, as modified by the impugned appellate judgment dated 14.6.2016 of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, in Crl.A.No.486/2012. The Sessions Court as per the above said impugned judgment has upheld the conviction but had modified the sentence by directing that the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶22

Heard Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-accused and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

¶23

::2::

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.42 Of 2017

¶25

Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioneraccused submits on the basis of the instructions from his party that the revision petitioner is not challenging the impugned conviction concurrently imposed on him by the courts below and would pray only for 4 months' time to pay the compensation amount of Rs.90,000/-. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and would require at least the said time limit of 4 months' time in order to raise the said amount to pay the compensation as he is having financial difficulties even to meet with his treatment expenses. In the result, the following orders are passed:

¶26

(i) The impugned conviction for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the above said case will also stand confirmed.

¶27

(ii) The impugned sentence imposed on the petitioner directing that he should suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- to the 1^st respondent with a default clause that he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months is also upheld.

¶28

(iii) The petitioner is given 4 months' time to pay compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- and to appear before the trial court for undergoing simple imprisonment till rising of the court. In that regard, the petitioner will be at liberty to appear before the trial court on any day on or before 20.5.2017

¶29

::3::

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.42 Of 2017

¶31

for the above purpose. Upon payment of the compensation amount of Rs.90,000/-, the same shall be disbursed to the 1^st respondent-complainant without any further delay by the trial court.

¶32

(iv) Any coercive steps taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned sentence will stand deferred until then.

¶33

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Revision

¶34

Petition stands finally disposed of.

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

¶36

Judge.

¶37

bkn/-

Sudheerkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheerkumar 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

Asokan Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Sabina Abraham Vs T.Chandran

Archana Vs Harikumar C.J.

Arun Francis Vs State of Kerala

S.Madhulal Vs Raveendran

K.Abdul Latheef Vs Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd.