Pulikkattil Traders, v. M/S. Avm Marketing
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the revision petition challenging conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court interpreted Section 141 allowing separate punishment for a firm and its partner. It refused to apply Vijayan dicta regarding interest to mandate fine reduction but voluntarily reduced the compensation component to equal the cheque amount.
What did the court decide?
Revision petition dismissed; compensation entitled by complainant reduced to Rs.25,000/-.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.150 OF 2019
AGAINST CRL.A NO.214/2018 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE DATED 22-10-2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.NO.6/2018 DATED 18.5.2018 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT XI, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 PULIKKATTIL TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER PRASHOB E., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LOHIDHAKSHAN, PULIKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673019.
2 SEENA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O.PRASHOB E., PARTNER, PULIKKATTIL TRADERS, PULIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673019.
BY ADVS.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether separate punishment can be imposed on a firm and its partner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Whether the fine and interest direction in Vijayan v. Baby mandates a reduction of compensation payable.
Whether the revision petition challenging conviction and sentence calls for interference.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Pulikkattil Traders
- petitioner
Seena
- respondent
M/s.AVM Marketing
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court