Partly allowed

P.P.Kunhahammed v. v.v.Krishnan

Kerala HC18 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1675/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,50,000 with a default clause of two months' simple imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; conviction upheld; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 2,50,000 with default imprisonment of two months to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

P.P.Kunhahammed Vs v.v.Krishnan — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 822/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 21-02-2012

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 89/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI DATED 27-06-2014

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

P.P.KUNHAHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. ABUBECKER, PARATHIKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKOTH BAZAR P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 V.V.KRISHNAN

¶13

S/O. CHAMI, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, TIRURKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

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

¶15

R1BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A.

¶16

R2 BY SRI. E C BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

STK

¶19

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2014

¶20

-2-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The revision petitioner was convicted and

¶23

sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”).

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The courts below correctly

¶26

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque

¶27

as contemplated under Section 138 of the

¶28

N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, rejecting the

¶29

contentions of the revision petitioner.

¶30

No material is available before the Court to

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2014

¶32

-3-

¶33

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 offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶34

The revision petitioner is aged 65

¶35

years. The revision petitioner has no source of income at present. The revision petitioner is also suffering from various ailments. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency in the matter of

¶36

sentence. Considering the facts and

¶37

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2014

¶38

-4-

¶39

circumstances of the case, including the

¶40

submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and 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

¶41

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakh and Fifty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered

¶42

accordingly. If the fine amount is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under

¶43

Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶44

In the result, this Revision Petition

¶45

stands allowed in part as above. The

¶46

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2014

¶47

-5-

¶48

revision petitioner is granted eleven months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶49

Needless to state that, if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the fine/compensation.

¶50

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

STK

P.P.Kunhahammed v. v.v.Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Kunhahammed v. v.v.Krishnan

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

Surendran T.N Vs P.R Raveendran

V.B.Mqni Vs State of Kerala

B.Venkita Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Puthanari Ali Bappu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

D.Rajeev Vs B.Anil Kumar