Allowed

V.S.Aji v. C.S.Sreekumar

Kerala HC7 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1318/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. While affirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable within six months, with two months' imprisonment as punishment in default. The fine is to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; conviction affirmed; sentence modified to Rs. 3,00,000 fine (payable in 6 months); default punishable by 2 months imprisonment.

V.S.Aji Vs C.S.Sreekumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1318 of 2006

¶6

CRA 107/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CC 689/2001 of J.M.F.C.-I, ATTINGAL

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

V.S. AJI, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, KIZHAKKE PALACHAL VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SMT.AMINA BHANU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE::

¶12

1. C.S. SREEKUMAR, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, SARASWATHI VILASOM, BEHIND K.S.R.T.C. GARRAGE, EAST JUNCTION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BAIJU JOSEPH

¶15

SRI.G.JAYANANDA PAI SRI.K.MOHAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

STK

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl. R.P. No.1318 of 2006

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2018

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the matter on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only leniency in the matter of sentence. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below concurrently under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶27

Crl. R.P. No.1318 of 2006

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine amount is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶30

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above. The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine.

¶31

Needless to state that, the payment directly made to the complainant will be treated as sufficient compliance of direction of payment of fine in this order, provided, the complainant files an affidavit in this regard before the trial court.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶34

STK

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

V.S.Aji v. C.S.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Aji v. C.S.Sreekumar

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

K.P.Muhammed Jaseel Vs State- Rep. by Ci of Police

K.Padmakumar Vs K.Ellangovan I.A.S

Muhammedkutty A.C Vs State of Kerala

Babu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rema M. Vs M/S. Rich Field Chitties Pvt. Ltd.

Sajikumaranachari Vs Mohammed Sherief@Shaji