Criminal Revision Petition in a cheque bouncing case. High Court confirmed conviction under Section 138. Found sentence appropriate but granted three months time to pay fine. Deferred coercive steps and set future appearance date.
Three months time granted to pay fine; coercive steps deferred until 17.2.2018 or failure to appear; sentencing confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 601 of 2015 ()
CRA 387/2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA CC 642/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAGINI., AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O.THANKAPPAN, PAIKKAPPALLITHARAYIL, PUTHIYAVILA VADAKKU MURI, KANDALLUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. MURALEEDHARAN., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VAISHNAVAM VEETTIL, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.601 of 2015
----------------------------------------Dated this the 1st day of November, 2017
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.642 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein.
: :2::
Crl.R.P.601/15
the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3,75,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Amount of fine will be treated as compensation to the complainant. It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts 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.
: :3::
Crl.R.P.601/15
: :4::
Crl.R.P.601/15
marked Exhibits-D1 and D2 documents. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence.
: :5::
Crl.R.P.601/15
accused to establish the veracity of her contention that even the signature is not that of hers. No clinching circumstance could be brought in evidence even remotely to sustain the tenability of such a defence suggestion that she had a personal loan transaction with the complainant's wife and at that point of time, a blank cheque was given. Ordinarily, when a cheque is demanded as security, any prudent person could be expected to demand that it should be a blank, but signed cheque. Therefore, even the very nature of the defence that a completely blank cheque was given, lacks total credibility with both the courts below. Thus the courts below have taken the stand that except baldly raising such defence contentions, no clinching circumstance could be brought out before the courts below even to remotely sustain the credibility of such a suggestion and that the said defence contention has remained only in the realm of a suggestion. It is in the light of these aspects, the courts below have taken the view that the complainant has broadly proved his case and that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As regards the contention regarding the issuance of Exhibit-P5 statutory demand notice, it has come out in evidence that the address shown in Exhibit-P5 notice is the same as in Exhibit-P7 Bank account opening statement of the accused. Therefore, the said
: :6::
Crl.R.P.601/15
contention of the accused has also been rightly rejected by both the courts below. In these circumstances, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the considered findings of fact regarding the conviction of the petitioner.
Crl.R.P.601/15 : :7::
from the date of the cheque up to the date of realisation. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the sentence and fine amount.
appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that in case, this Court is inclined to affirm the conviction and sentence in this case, then at least three months' time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant three months’ time as now sought for by the petitioner.
passed :
: :8::
Crl.R.P.601/15
petitioner to pay the abovesaid amount, she will have to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months as ordered in the impugned judgment.
The Registry will forward a copy of this order to R2/complainant
as well as the trial court for necessary information and appropriate action.
With these observations and directions, the Criminal Revision Petition will stand finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
csl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sustainable given the disputed plea of a blank cheque.
Whether the fine amount of Rs.3,75,000/ and the sentence of imprisonment are excessive.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a time extension to pay the fine amount and avoid imprisonment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.Vijayan v. Baby and anotherReferred¶46
R.Vijayan v. Baby and another (2012) 1 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
RAGINI.
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MURALEEDHARAN.
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
