Partly allowed

T. Sulaikha v. T. Sathyapalan

Kerala HC10 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1726/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition in part. It held that the conviction under Section 138 NI Act was correct but set aside the simple imprisonment, retaining the fine and default sentence due to the petitioner's age.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment, retaining the fine and default sentence; granted six months to pay the fine.

T. Sulaikha Vs T. Sathyapalan — 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 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 19TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1726 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 684/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THALASSERY DATED 07-10-2010

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 421/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, THALASSERY DATED 26-07-2016

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶9

T. SULAIKHA

¶10

D/O. UMMEN, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAZHAIL HOUSE, (REHMANYA MANZIL), P.O.PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT. BINDUMOL JOSEPH ADV. SRI. B SYAMANTHAK

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 T. SATHYAPALAN

¶14

S/O. KELAPPAN, AGED 56 YEARS, ODEKKEKATH THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, MOKERI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ENAKULAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.C. ANIL KUMAR

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R2 BY SHRI E C BINEESH

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1726 of 2016

¶22

-2-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶25

by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque 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 is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect.

¶28

In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the

¶29

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1726 of 2016

¶30

-3-

¶31

courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, does not warrant

¶32

any interference by this court.

¶33

The revision petitioner is presently aged 64 years as per the records. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and also the nature of the transaction, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months awarded by the courts below can be set aside retaining the fine and the default sentence, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶35

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1726 of 2016

¶36

-4-

¶37

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner had already paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the first respondent has not so far received any amount from the revision petitioner in connection with this case. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent, this court will not be justified in recording that the revision petitioner had already paid the fine as directed by the courts below.

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1726 of 2016

¶40

-5-

¶41

I make it clear that the payment directly made to the

¶42

complainant will be treated as sufficient compliance of payment of fine/compensation provided the complainant

¶43

files an affidavit in this regard before the trial court.

¶44

Dated this the 10^th day of September 2018.

¶45

¶46

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶47

dl/

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

PS to Judge

T. Sulaikha v. T. Sathyapalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sulaikha v. T. Sathyapalan

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

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons Vs M/S. Bensons International

Gangadharan Vs Krishna Sopanam Kuries (P) Ltd.

Suhara Vs Sulekha Majeed

K.v.Shaheer Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Thayyil Vs K.Ismail

Sheeja B.L Vs State of Kerala