Partly allowed

C. Khadeeja v. T.K. Premachandran

Kerala HC3 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/499/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition in part. Confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Court modified the sentence imposing a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 payable within ten months, directing payment of the fine to the complainant as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified: fine of Rs. 1,50,000 with default clause for one month simple imprisonment. Payment period granted as ten months.

C. Khadeeja Vs T.K. Premachandran — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 499 of 2018

¶6

CRA 213/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - II, THALASSERY

¶7

CC 12/2009 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THALASSERY

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

C. KHADEEJA, AGED 50 YEARS, 'GIRISH', HOUSE NO.DP 111-369, NEAR KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MELOOR P.O. & DESOM, DHARMADAM AMSON, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. T.K. PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN T.P., 'PRASANTHI', P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR, PIN - 670 621.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶16

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

¶17

STK

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.R.P. No.499 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2018

¶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, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”).

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral

¶27

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 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 by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the

¶28

Crl.R.P. No.499 of 2018

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶31

The revision petitioner is a lady aged 50 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including 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 a fine of Rs.1,50,000/(Rupees One lakh and Fifty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one month to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. 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. The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine.

¶33

Needless to state that, if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said amount

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.499 of 2018

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

will be treated as part payment of the fine/compensation.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

STK

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

C. Khadeeja v. T.K. Premachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Khadeeja v. T.K. Premachandran

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

Jayakumar Vs State

Seenath Jaleel Vs Annamma Varghese