Partly allowed

Shanmughan v. the Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/256/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. It upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but reduced the sentence, replacing the one-month imprisonment with a fine and default rule, considering the petitioner's age, lack of income, and ailments.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence of one month imprisonment set aside; default sentence and fine retained; time granted to pay fine.

Shanmughan Vs the Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural… — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 6607/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOLLAM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 193/2014 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶9

SHANMUGHAN

¶10

S/O.RAJAPPAN ACHARI,FLOWER,BHAVAN NAGAR,KADAPPAKKADA,KOLLAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD

¶14

O 167,KOLLAM REP BY THE SENIOR SUPERVISOR OF THE BANK SRI VASANTH KUMAR,PILLA VEEDU,MURIKUMON,NILAMEL,KOLLAM 691 535

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA RPERESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

R2 BY SHRI E C BINEEESH-PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2015

¶21

-2-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶24

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

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the

¶27

revision petition on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only leniency in the matter of sentence. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the courts below correctly appreciated the relevant inputs and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the

¶28

N.I. Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to

¶29

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2015

¶30

interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is presently aged 58 years. The revision petitioner is not having any source of income for his livelihood. He is also suffering from various ailments. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel has requested for reducing the sentence awarded by the appellate court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one month awarded by the appellate court can be set aside retaining the fine and the default sentence, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2015

¶33

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶34

part as above.

¶35

The revision petitioner is granted three 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, pursuant to the direction of this court or the lower appellate court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the

¶37

fine/compensation.

¶38

Dated this the 12^th day of September 2018.

¶39

¶40

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶41

Dl/ // True Copy / PS to Judge

Shanmughan v. the Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmughan v. the Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

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.R. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Rajendran Vs Aiswarya Enterprises

K.P. Varghese Vs Abdul Khader

Jebby M.Aliyar Vs State

K.T.Hassan Koya Vs E.P.Ajith

M.K.Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala and Another