Allowed

Ajith v. Arunan

Kerala HC24 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/1540/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court confirmed the conviction and imposed sentence. The court retained the compensation quantum but granted the accused five months to pay via instalments due to familial relationship and financial crisis.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence confirmed; compensation payable in five equal monthly instalments; default clause retained; sentence to serve within two weeks.

Ajith Vs Arunan — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1540 OF 2016

¶6

CRA 923/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

CC 382/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

AJITH

¶10

S/O PUSHPANGATHAN, AGED:44 YEARS, ANDIKOTT HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT L.P.SCHOOL, P.O.KODAKARA

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶13

1 ARUNAN

¶14

S/O ANDIKOTT CHAKKAPPAN, PADIYUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 680683

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶16

3 JAYAVALLI AGED 61 YEARS ANDIKOTT HOUSE,EDATHIRINJI DESOM,EDATHIRINJI P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶17

4 AKHILESH AGED 35 YEARS ANDIKOTT HOUSE,EDATHIRINJI DESOM,EDATHIRINJI P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶18

5 ANISHA AGED 33, ANDIKOTT HOUSE,EDATHIRINJI DESOM,EDATHIRINJI P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT (ADDL.R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.5.19 IN CRL.M.A.1/2019 )

¶19

SRI.C.N. PRABHAKARAN, PP R3 BY ADV. N.L.BITTO

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P.1540/2016

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was convicted by the trial court and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. The cheque amount of Rs 5,00,000/was directed to be paid as compensation. The petitioner went in appeal. He was successful only to the extent of getting a reduction in the substantive sentence of imprisonment. He was directed to undergo imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court. The appellate court enhanced the compensation by Rs 50,000/-. The conviction, sentence and compensation are assailed in the revision.

¶25

Heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.L.Bitto, the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant.

¶26

Crl.R.P.1540/2016

¶27

¶28

I am called upon to decide a revision and not an appeal. I have perused the judgments of the courts below. I do not find any reason to find fault with the conviction on the petitioner. The complainant and two witnesses were examined. Their evidence proves the transaction and the issuance of the cheque which met dishonour. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect the credibility of the evidence given by PWs1 to 3. Nothing could be pointed out at the hearing of the revision to suspect the credibility of their evidence. What may I to do is only to confirm the finding of guilt. I confirm it.

¶29

Although the trial court imposed a severe sentence, the appellate court rightly softened it to one of imprisonment till the rising of the court. The compensation awarded by the appellate court is only a bit above the cheque amount. I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the

¶30

Crl.R.P.1540/2016

¶31

¶32

quantum of compensation exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given some breathing time to pay off the compensation. It is submitted that the parties are close relatives. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in a financial crisis. The time sought for making the payments is ten months. It is pretty long. That much time cannot be granted to pay off Rs 5,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the first respondent opposed the grant of any further time for payment of the compensation. I am of the view that the petitioner should be allowed to pay the compensation in instalments. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that in the event the court is inclined to grant time for payment of compensation, it may not exceed three months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to grant

¶34

Crl.R.P.1540/2016

¶35

¶36

five months for payment in five equal instalments.

¶37

The revision is allowed to the extent indicated below : Confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner and retaining the quantum of compensation awarded against him, he is given an instalment facility to pay off the compensation. The compensation amount, less any amount deposited in the trial court or the appellate court, shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on 1.12.2019. The subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the first day of every succeeding month. If any instalment is defaulted beyond a period of ten days, the entire facility of instalments will lapse, in which event the entire balance payable shall become payable in lump. The default sentence imposed on the petitioner is confirmed and retained. The petitioner shall serve the sentence of imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court within a

¶38

Crl.R.P.1540/2016

¶39

¶40

period of two weeks from today. Needless to say that any

¶41

amount in deposit in the trial court or the appellate court

¶42

shall be paid to the heirs of the complainant.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/24.10.

Ajith v. Arunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith v. Arunan

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

Shahitha Beevi Vs Hawa Ummal

A. Sivadas Vs Kuttappan

Subramanian Vs N.v.Noorudeen

M.Chandrasekharan Nair Vs Padmini Gopi

P.A. Kuriakose Vs St.Marys Church

Abraham J.Tharakan Vs K.X.Geemon