Dismissed

Jose.P.T v. Narendra Kumar Gupta

Kerala HC1 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/1051/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the issuance of the cheque and the validity of business transactions, finding no technical grounds or merit in the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Jose.P.T Vs Narendra Kumar Gupta — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1051 OF 2019

¶6

CRA 156/2018 DATED 15-09-2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE

¶7

CC 2706/2015 OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (N.I.ACT CASES), KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

JOSE.P.T AGED 60 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, KALLUVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT

¶12

1 NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA PROPRIETOR, M/S. BHAVANI AUTO DISTRIBUTORS, HEAD OFFICE AT 40/8609, C AND D, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PRAKASH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, FLAT NO.D2, PLATINO APARTMENTS, AISHWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.ASHLEY JOHN

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN -PP

¶17

Crl.R.P.1051/2019

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P.1051/2019

ORDER

The revision is filed assailing the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The conviction and sentence were under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence imposed was a fine of Rs 53,000/-. It was directed that the accused should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in the event of his failure to pay the fine. It was directed that the fine amount should be paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard Sri.Tony Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Admittedly there were business dealings between the petitioner and the first respondent, which was a

¶26

Crl.R.P.1051/2019

¶27

¶28

proprietary establishment. The courts below found that the petitioner did issue Ext P2 cheque to the first respondent. The point urged now is that PW1 who is the power-of-attorney holder of the first respondent had no direct knowledge in the deal between the petitioner and the first respondent. PW1 spoke so. But the first respondent examined PW2 who was his sales officer. He spoke to the business dealings between the petitioner and the first respondent. Absolutely nothing is available to suspect the evidence of PW2.

¶29

Issuance of a cheque by the petitioner to the first respondent is admitted by the former in Ext P6 reply notice. The allegation therein is the issuance of a blank cheque. But nothing is available in the available evidence in support of the case of the petitioner that he issued a blank cheque. The reason why he should issue a blank cheque is also not forthcoming. The evidence of PW2

¶30

Crl.R.P.1051/2019

¶31

¶32

proves the case of issuance of blank cheque untrue. I do not see any reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the courts below that Ext P2 cheque was issued by the petitioner to the first respondent in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.

¶33

The genuineness of the business transactions cannot also be disputed by the petitioner. For, he himself admits payment of Rs 15,000/- towards the transaction. His case is that his liability is only Rs 15,000/-. But the evidence available in the case does not support the said contention. The payment of Rs 15,000/- has been conceded by the first respondent. I do not see any merit in the contentions of the petitioner.

¶34

No technical ground is available to the petitioner to urge. What he received was only a soft sentence of fine. Absolutely nothing is available to admit the revision. The

¶35

Crl.R.P.1051/2019

¶36

¶37

same is without any merit. It deserves only a dismissal.

¶38

Dismissed.

¶39

A.M.BABU

¶40

Judge

¶41

Mrcs/1.10.

Jose.P.T v. Narendra Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose.P.T v. Narendra Kumar Gupta

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

John K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Madhusoodhanan Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

C.S.Jayaram Vs N.T.Sugunan