Partly allowed

Seenath Jaleel v. Annamma Varghese

Kerala HC3 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/207/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act was allowed in part. The High Court found no material to interfere with the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and reduced the fine to Rs. 3 lakhs due to the appellant's financial hardship.

What did the court decide?

Revised sentence: Imprisonment till rising of the court, fine of Rs. 3,00,000 (payable in 11 months) and 45 days simple imprisonment in default. Compensation of fine amount to be given to complainant.

Seenath Jaleel Vs Annamma Varghese — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 207 of 2016

¶6

CRA 175/2014 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM ST 52/2013 of J.M.F.C-III, KANJIRAPPALLY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

SEENATH JALEEL W/O. JALEEL, MALIYETH THUNDIYIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶10

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

¶11

ANNAMMA VARGHESE W/O. VARGHESE, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R11 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA

¶19

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI E C BINEESH

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.207 of 2016

¶23

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of August 2018

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced 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

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.207/16 : 2 :

¶30

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. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is a lady presently aged 47 years, having no source of income. Her husband abandoned her. She has to look after two minor children and her father. She earns livelihood by doing tailoring work. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel has pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶32

Crl.R.P. No.207/16 : 3 :

¶33

revision petitioner and also 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 imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees three lakhs only) and in default to simple imprisonment for 45 days, to 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court,

¶37

Crl.R.P. No.207/16 : 4 :

¶38

pursuant to the direction of this court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the compensation.

¶39

¶40

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

dl/3.8.18

¶43

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Seenath Jaleel v. Annamma Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenath Jaleel v. Annamma Varghese

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

Biju Khan Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh Shankaran Vs State of Kerala

Ambika Vs Kunjumol

G.F.S.Chits & Loans (P) Ltd. Vs Raghu Prabhakaran

C. Khadeeja Vs T.K. Premachandran

Jayakumar Vs State