Allowed

Abdul Nassar @ K.a.Nasar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour case, the High Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,60,000 with a two-month imprisonment default, allowing fine payment in ten months.

What did the court decide?

Modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,60,000 and directed that any amount previously deposited be treated as part payment of the fine.

Abdul Nassar @ K.a.Nasar Vs State of Kerala — 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 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 488 of 2014

¶6

CRA 713/2010 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC 414/2008 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

ABDUL NASSAR @ K.A.NASAR

¶9

S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KUNNATHETHIL HOUSE, PO. KIZHAYUR, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 31.

¶13

KALI, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶14

D/O.KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303.

¶15

MURDI, AGED 56 YEARS D/O.KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303.

¶16

VELAYUDHAN, AGED 50 YEARS

¶17

S/O.KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303.

¶18

RAMANKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS S/O..KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR

¶19

AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303.

¶20

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 488 of 2014

¶21

-2-

¶22

SAROJINI, AGED 44 YEARS

¶23

D/O.KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR

¶24

AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303

¶25

KARTHIYAYINI, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.KUNHIKURUMBAN, ADAKURUSSIPADI HOUSE, MARUTHUR AMSOM, KODALOOR DESOM, PATTAMBI, PIN - 679 303

¶26

R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1-3-2018, THIS COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶29

Crl. R.P. No. 488 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the Ist day of March, 2018

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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').

¶33

Heard .

¶34

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant 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

¶35

Crl. R.P. No. 488 of 2014

¶36

-2-

¶37

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.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext. P2 cheque, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to a fine of Rs. 1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶39

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

¶40

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine. Needless to state that if the

¶41

Crl. R.P. No. 488 of 2014

¶42

-3-

¶43

revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of the lower appellate court, the said amount shall be treated as part payment of the fine directed in this order.

¶44

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶45

ani/

Abdul Nassar @ K.a.Nasar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nassar @ K.a.Nasar v. State of Kerala

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.K.Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Sidharthan Kattungal Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Faris Vs T.E.Kunhabdulla

P.K.Vikraman Vs State

K.R. Suresh Kumar Vs Suresh Kumar.D.

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala