Partly allowed

C.R. Shaji v. Balakrishnan

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1519/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition in part. It upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 3,30,000, payable within ten months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 3,30,000 payable within ten months.

C.R. Shaji Vs Balakrishnan — 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1519 of 2014

¶6

Crl.A 316/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI ST 64/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, PERINTHALMANNA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

C.R. SHAJI S/O. RAJAPPAN, AGED 46 YEARS, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAVATHUNAGAR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.P.A.SALIM SRI.ANZAR BASHEER SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. BALAKRISHNAN S/O. APPAYI, AGED 41 YEARS, IRIPPANKANDAN HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIPARAMBIL, KADAMBODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYASURYA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SCL.

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.1519 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short “the N.I.Act”).

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Exts.P2 and P3 cheques as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1519 of 2014

¶24

-2-

¶25

offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any

¶26

interference by this Court.

¶27

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner is not having any job at present. The petitioner is also having serious ailments. The petitioner is also in a stringent financial difficulty and he is not even able to meet both ends after spending huge amount for his treatment.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Exts P2 and P3 cheques, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 3,30,000/-(Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1519 of 2014

¶30

-3-

¶31

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part

¶32

as above.

¶33

The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine . Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court or the lower appellate court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the fine directed in this order.

¶34

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶35

Scl/26.02.18

C.R. Shaji v. Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R. Shaji v. Balakrishnan

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

S.R.Abhilash Vs Geetha S. Nair

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited Vs Manoj Kumar D

T.Thankachan Vs Sivakumar

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs Salih

V.Radha Vs Rahul S.K. @ Lalu