This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine due to the petitioner's health and financial status.
Sentence reduced to a fine of Rs. 2,80,000 with default clause for imprisonment.
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
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 787 of 2018
CRA 600/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR
CC 169/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.
RAJU THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, PALANGARA HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA, CHULLI PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.JAISON JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD 4TH FLOOR, MATHEWSONS SQUARE, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER- VINOD BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE. BABU, SENIOR FIELD OFFICER, RESIDING AT PATTASSERIL HOUSE, KURIAKADU PO.682305
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA NAIR
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No.787 of 2018
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2018
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').
find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Crl. R.P. No.787 of 2018
-: 2 :-
has pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is virtually paralysed due to disk collapse and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is not having any source of income at present. In view of the above reason, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has requested for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque and the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to a fine of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakh eighty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realized, 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
Crl. R.P. No.787 of 2018
-: 3 :-
part as above. The revision petitioner is granted eight months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act is sustainable on facts?
Whether the sentence of conviction needs modification considering the petitioner's medical condition and lack of income?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAJU THOMAS
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
