Allowed

M.K.Rajendran v. Aiswarya Enterprises

Kerala HC11 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1931/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that while the conviction stands affirmed as not perverse, the sentence is commuted to a fine of Rs. 90,000 payable in eleven months or one month of simple imprisonment to meet ends of justice, with full compensation directed to the complainant upon realization.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to a fine of Rs. 90,000 payable within eleven months; one month simple imprisonment in default. Realization to be given to complainant.

M.K.Rajendran Vs Aiswarya Enterprises — 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 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1931 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 139/2004 of SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 13-01-2006

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 156/2000 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE DATED 03-022004

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶9

M.K.RAJENDRAN S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PARAPPURATH HOUSE PO ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 AISWARYA ENTERPRISES SHOLAPUR MANSION BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI E MOHANAN, S/O.E VASU MANNARAKKAL THAZHATH HOUSE, MAKKADA POST, KOZHIKODE

¶13

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

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.E.C BINEESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶19

by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶20

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1931 of 2009

¶21

-2-

¶22

Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 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 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 of conviction by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, does not warrant any interference by

¶25

this court.

¶26

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1931 of 2009

¶27

-3-

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶29

pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence. The revision petitioner is presently aged 55 years. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has further submitted that the revision petitioner is not having any source of income at present and hence, if exorbitant amount is awarded as compensation, the revision petitioner will not be able to pay the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque and also

¶30

the nature of transaction, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) and

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1931 of 2009

¶32

-4-

¶33

in default to simple imprisonment for one month, to

¶34

meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine amount is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶35

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

¶36

The revision petitioner is granted eleven months to

¶37

pay the fine, as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶38

Dated this the 11^th day of September 2018.

¶39

¶40

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

dl/

¶42

// True Copy//

¶43

PSto Judge

M.K.Rajendran v. Aiswarya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Rajendran v. Aiswarya Enterprises

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.v.Shaheer Vs State of Kerala

T. Sulaikha Vs T. Sathyapalan

Ruksana Thayyil Vs K.Ismail

K.R. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Varghese Vs Abdul Khader

Mohandas R. Vs Ouseph