Partly allowed

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC9 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/3507/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a deceased appellant convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be realized from the appellant's estate, compensating the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment sentence reduced to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-; fine to be realized from the estate and paid as compensation.

G.Surendran Vs State of Kerala and Another — 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

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3507 of 2009

¶6

CRA 465/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC 373/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

G.SURENDRAN, S/O. GANGADHARAN, SANTHINIKETHAN, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. UPENDRAN G., THUNDIL MELATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAYIL, ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

STK

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

--------------------------------

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.3507 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2018

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”).

¶22

The revision petitioner died on 4.2.2015. Since nobody has come forward to contest the matter, this Court appointed Advocate Shri.Ahamed Fazil E.C. as Amicus Curiae to argue the revision petition.

¶23

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the accused had issued cheque only for Rs.20,000/- and in the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused had executed Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- as contended by the complainant and consequently the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot sustained.

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.3507 of 2009

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

It is borne out from the records that apart from the above contention of the revision petitioner, there is absolutely no material before the court to indicate that the above contention of the revision petitioner is probable.

¶28

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The appellate court awarded a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- to the complainant with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.2,00,000/-. The revision petitioner is no more. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.3507 of 2009

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). It is ordered accordingly. The fine shall be realized from the estate of the deceased revision petitioner. If the fine amount is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶32

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶36

STK

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Ramesh Kumar Vs Ajith

P.K.Abdulla Vs Kunhamootty

Joseph Thomas Vs M.Radhakrishnan and Another

k.s. prakash Vs state of kerala

Sheeba, Vs State of Kerala

Madhu M.V Vs State of Kerala