Partly allowed

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons v. M/S. Bensons International

Kerala HC7 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/56/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected challenges to the conviction of two petitioners for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act. While retaining the compensation and default sentence, the court quashed the substantive imprisonment term for the second petitioner, aged 64, granting a partial allowance aimed at meeting the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court against the second revision petitioner was set aside; compensation and default sentence retained. First petitioner's impugned sent

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons Vs M/S. Bensons International — 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

FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 56 of 2009

¶6

CRA 894/2006 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CC 1929/2001 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 M/S. A.P.VARGHESE & SONS,8/84 FERRY ROAD ELOOR

¶10

2 ANTONY VARGHESE, AGED 53 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER,M/S.A.P.VARGHESE & SONS, D0 D0 D0.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI. ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 M/S. BENSONS INTERNATIONAL, 34/1991, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.N.A JOSEPH,AGED 44 YEARS, 48/2552,MARAKKAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTAKUZHY, ELAMKKARA, KOCHI.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI. C.S. DIAS SRI. N.K. SUBRAMANIAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

B JAYASURYA-PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.Rev.Pet.56/2009 : 2 :

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced

¶23

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

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral

¶26

and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioners 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 petitioners. No material is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect.

¶27

Crl.Rev.Pet.56/2009 : 3 :

¶28

In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶29

The second revision petitioner is presently aged 64 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court awarded by the courts below against the 2^nd revision petitioner can be set aside, retaining the compensation and the default sentence, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. The sentence awarded against the first revision petitioner does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.56/2009 : 4 :

¶32

Needless to state that if the second revision petitioner

¶33

had already deposited any amount before the trial court, pursuant to the direction of this court or the lower appellate

¶34

court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the compensation/fine. If the second revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the tiral court in

¶35

excess, the second revision petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the said amount from the trial court.

¶36

Sd/

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

dl/10.9.2018

¶40

// True copy // PA to Judge

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons v. M/S. Bensons International

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons v. M/S. Bensons International

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

Muhammed Jaleel K.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Hareesh Poojari Vs Sree Malavika Chits India Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs. Ambily Joshy Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar

Gangadharan Vs Krishna Sopanam Kuries (P) Ltd.

Suhara Vs Sulekha Majeed

P.G. Mathew Vs O.V. Rajeev