Dismissed

C.S.Jayaram v. N.T.Sugunan

Kerala HC1 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Although mediation resulted in a settlement and compromise, the revision petitioner failed to appear, and the court found the defence untenable as a cheque blade cannot be kept unsafely on a laboratory table. The judgment was dismissed as unmerited.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed.

C.S.Jayaram Vs N.T.Sugunan — 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.124 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 137/2017 DATED 13-11-2018 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 180/2017 DATED 30-06-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, CHERTHALA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

C.S.JAYARAM AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, CHENNANATTUTHARA, PATTANAKAD P.O, PROPRIETOR, ASWATHY LABORATORY AND ECG, SOUTH OF TALUK HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA P.O

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 N.T.SUGUNAN AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, NIKARTHIL, CMC-17, CHERTHALA-688 524

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

R2 SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.124 OF 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

A learned single judge of this court has stated in the order dated 31.5.2019 that this court did not find any ground to admit the revision. However, in order to ascertain the possibility of a settlement, the matter was referred to the mediation centre attached to the sub-court at Cherthala. The matter was settled and the revision petitioner agreed to pay and the first respondent agreed to receive an amount of Rs 2,75,000/-. The compromise document states that the payment should be made on or before 31.9.2019 (must be a mistake for 30.9.2019). When the revision came up for consideration on 30.9.2019 there was no representation on the side of the revision petitioner. The case was adjourned to today. Today too there is no representation. The learned counsel for the first respondent is present. The learned counsel submits that the revision is without any merit. I have perused the judgments of the courts below. I do not find it appropriate to adjourn the revision.

¶22

The case tried and decided was one alleging commission of an offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as well as the appellate court considered the evidence of PW1 and the documents Exts P1 to P5. Absolutely nothing is available to suspect the evidence of PW1 and the transaction spoken to by him. The defence set up by the revision petitioner is one inconceivable. The

¶23

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.124 OF 2019

¶25

defence was that a cheque leaf which was kept on the table kept in the laboratory run by him came to the possession of the first respondent somehow or other. It is impossible to accept any such version. A cheque is not a document which one keeps on the table in a laboratory where the customers have access. The case of the revision petitioner was weak. That apart, nothing is available in evidence to find that the contention of the revision petitioner is at least probable.

¶26

All matters which should be taken note of had been taken note of by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Only a soft punishment of imprisonment till the rising of the court was imposed as substantive sentence. Compensation equal to the amount shown in the cheque was directed to be paid. Default sentence of four months' simple imprisonment was also not on the higher side.

¶27

The revision is without any merit whatsoever. The same deserves only a dismissal.

¶28

Dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

SKS/1.10.2019

C.S.Jayaram v. N.T.Sugunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Jayaram v. N.T.Sugunan

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

Jose.P.T Vs Narendra Kumar Gupta