In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for cheque bounce under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 3,10,000 with a provision for compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
The sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 3,10,000; time granted to pay the fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 50 of 2012
CRA 909/2007 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ST 493/2005 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
ASHRAF
S/O.IBRAHIM CHELOOR, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, VATTAMAVEL DESOM, KORATTIKKARA P.O., KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
O R D E R
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').
and documentary evidence adduced by the parties 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
Crl.R.P. No.50/12 : 2 :
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 N.I. Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.
Crl.R.P. No.50/12 : 3 :
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.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine.
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 will be treated as part payment of the fine directed in this order.
sd
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/14.2.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the N.I. Act warrants interference at this stage.
Whether the sentence imposed can be modified to a fine in view of the appellant's paralysis.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ASHRAF
THE STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
