Allowed

Sreekantan, v. Valsala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/1116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence. The fine was reduced, converted into monetary compensation, and the appellant was granted a four-month instalment period for payment.

What did the court decide?

Fine reduced; converted to compensation of Rs 2,32,000 payable in four monthly instalments starting 1st December 2019; default sentence confirmed.

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala — 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 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1116 OF 2019

¶6

CRA 177/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

ST 42/2011 DATED 23-05-2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -VI, NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

SREEKANTAN,

¶10

S/O VELAYUDHAN, GEETHANJALI, KOTTAYAM, PARASUVAIKKAL P.O.PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE SRI.GEORGE RENOY

¶13

RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF R1 AND R2/LRs OF COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶14

1 VALSALA, WIFE OF LATE N. MURUKADAS, SUPRABHA COTTAGE, CHANTHAVILAKAM, ELLUVILA P.O.KARAKKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

2 SUNIL, SON OF LATE N. MURUKADAS, SUPRABHA COTTAGE, CHANTHAVILAKAM, ELLUVILA P.O.KARAKKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶16

3 PRASAD, SON OF LATE N. MURUKADAS, SUPRABHA COTTAGE, CHANTHAVILAKAM, ELLUVILA P.O.KARAKKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

4 BALACHANDRAN, SON OF LATE N. MURUKADAS, SUPRABHA COTTAGE,

¶18

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶19

¶20

CHANTHAVILAKAM, ELLUVILA P.O.KARAKKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶21

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN BY ADV. SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. BY ADV. SRI.U.M.HASSAN BY ADV. SMT.P.PARVATHY BY ADV. SMT.SURYA P SHAJI

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI.C.K.PRASAD PP

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act). He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to simple imprisonment for ten days and a fine of Rs 2,50,000/-. In appeal, the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court. The fine was reduced to Rs 2,42,000/-.

¶30

Heard Sri.Tony Augustine, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saijo Hassan, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 who are the legal representatives of the complainant.

¶31

Ext P1 cheque met dishonour. The reason for the dishonour was the lack of funds in the account of the petitioner. Statutory notice under Sec.138 (b) of the N.I.Act was issued to him. He received it, but no

¶32

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶33

¶34

payment was made. Hence the complaint was filed against him.

¶35

The complainant gave evidence as PW1. He swore an affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief in which he stated his case. He swore to the transaction between him and the accused and also to the issuance of the cheque by the accused. The evidence of PW1 was well corroborated by PW2. Admittedly Ext P1 contains the signature of the accused. He should therefore explain how he happened to issue Ext P1 cheque. He had taken a contention that the borrowal was only Rs 18,000/- and that it was re-paid. But nothing is available in the available evidence in support of the defence taken by the petitioner. I am not called upon to decide an appeal, but to decide a revision. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity or error of jurisdiction to exercise the jurisdiction of a revisional court. I confirm the concurrent conclusions of the courts below that the petitioner did

¶36

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶37

¶38

commit the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.A.Act.

¶39

The trial court imposed a jail sentence of ten days. The appellate court softened it to an imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court. The fine of Rs 2,50,000/imposed by the trial court was reduced to Rs 2,42,000/by the appellate court taking into consideration of the payment made by the petitioner to the complainant. The learned appellate judge reduced Rs 8,000/- taking into account Exts P7 and P8 receipts evidencing receipt of Rs 8000/- by the complainant. But the learned appellate judge did not consider the evidence of PW1, the complainant himself, that the total payment received by him in three instalments was Rs 18,000/-. I find it appropriate to reduce the quantum of fine by Rs 10,000/-. I find it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs 2,32,000/- instead of fine.

¶40

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶41

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner requests for the grant of six months to pay off the compensation. The compensation payable is only Rs 2,32,000/-. Grant of six months for payment of Rs 2,32,000/- would be pretty long. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 opposed the grant of any instalments to the petitioner to pay off the compensation. However, the learned counsel submits that in the event the court is inclined to grant any instalment facility, it may not exceed three months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to grant four months.

¶43

The revision is allowed as indicated below : While confirming the conviction on the petitioner and the substantive sentence of imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court, the direction to pay fine is converted to a direction to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation shall be Rs 2,32,000/- (two lakhs thirty two thousand only). The petitioner is given an instalment

¶44

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶45

¶46

facility to pay off the compensation. It shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on the 1^st of December, 2019. The subsequent instalments shall fall due on the 1^st day of every succeeding month. If any instalment is defaulted, the balance payable shall become payable in lump. The default sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is retained.

¶47

A.M.BABU Judge

¶48

Mrcs/22.10.

¶49

Crl.R.P.1116/2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.5.2015 IN ST NO 42/2011 OF THE JFCM COURT VI, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE 11 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.3.2019 IN CRL.A NO 177/2015 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-IV THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Sreekantan, v. Valsala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekantan, v. Valsala

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

Nazeer Vs State

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahid Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Nizaruddin Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Saju Vs State of Kerala