Partly allowed

Muhammed Kunju, v. John P. Mathew

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/1221/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The sentence of three months imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Compensation was enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to till the rising of court; compensation enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/-.

Muhammed Kunju, Vs John P. Mathew — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1221 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.Appeal No.259/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C No.506/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, HARIPAD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ALI KUNJU, RESIDING AT NO.454, NAVAS MANZIL, PAYILKUZHI, OACHIRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NOW CONDUCTING A SHOP VIZ. NEW KERALA HOTEL, NEAR KSRTC STAND, HARIPAD.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 JOHN P. MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.M.JOHN, RESIDING AT PARANKAMOOTTIL KARAMMEL, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O., THRIPERUMTHURA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 622.

¶13

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)

¶14

SRI B JAYASURYA-SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.1221 OF 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is filed by the accused in the case C.C No. 506/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad.

¶20

The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') by the trial court. Learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and directed him to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, it was directed that he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Session challenging the conviction entered and the sentence imposed on him. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as sentence and dismissed the appeal.

¶21

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the counsel for the first respondent/complainant.

¶22

4 . The case of the complainant is that the petitioner

¶23

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1221 OF 2019

¶25

borrowed a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him in two instalments and in discharge of that liability, he issued two cheques for Rs.1,50,000/- each.

¶26

5 . The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and proved Exts. P1 to P7 documets. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of the petitioner/accused and Exts.D1 and D2 documents were marked on his side.

¶27

6 . After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the courts below have concurrently found that the cheques were executed and issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt due to the complainant. I find no perversity or impropriety in the appreciation of evidence made by the courts below. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed.

¶28

7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that leniency may be shown in imposing sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. At the same time, the complainant needs to be compensated by

¶29

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.1221 OF 2019

¶31

granting some amount in addition to the amount of the cheques in view of the delay in payment of the amount.

¶32

8 . In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part.

¶33

Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is confirmed. The sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months imposed on the revision petitioner is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The petitioner is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/(Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner is granted a period of three months from today to pay the amount of compensation or to deposit it in the court.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

rpk

Muhammed Kunju, v. John P. Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kunju, v. John P. Mathew

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

O.P.Achuthankutty Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnaprasad Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Ali Vs the State of Kerala

Puthalan Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Aleem, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu S.V. Vs Sathya Sreekumar