Dismissed

Erayankod Panayanthatta Pushpajan v. Nettoor Bharathi

Kerala HC10 Oct 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/941/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The revisioner alleged evidence inconsistencies. The court upheld the execution of the cheque as satisfactorily established by the complainant. The petition was dismissed in limine after the respondent failed to appear for an ordered settlement.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed in limine. The amendment of the sentence was dismissed.

Erayankod Panayanthatta Pushpajan Vs Nettoor Bharathi — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.941 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 154/2016 DATED 20-06-2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - II, THALASSERY

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.C.NO.51/2015 DATED 25-06-2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II (MUNSIFF), PAYYANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

ERAYANKOD PANAYANTHATTA PUSHPAJAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, VIPIN NIVAS, NEAR ALAKYAM PALAM, VILAYAMCODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 501.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.BINU SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 NETTOOR BHARATHI, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. LATE MADATHIL KUPPADAKATH BALAKRISHNAN, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, SREESTHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 303.

¶13

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

¶14

R2 BY SMT.REHNA N.S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.R.P.No.941/2019 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of October 2019

¶19

The revision is directed against concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court in a prosecution initiated under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I Act'). Both the courts below have concurrently found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 N.I Act and convicted and sentenced him. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court was modified by the appellate court till rising of the court. The imposition of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- was maintained. The direction to undergo imprisonment for two months in default of payment of fine was also maintained.

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that courts below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant in it's proper perspective and accordingly the execution of the cheque was found as established by him successfully. According to the learned counsel, the oral evidence tendered by PW1 was full of inconsistencies and the trial court ought not to have relied on it to find the accused guilty of the offence.

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.941/2019 3

¶22

According to the learned counsel, the evidence tendered by PW1 was totally against the recitals in Ext.P6, the agreement for sale relied on by him based on which the alleged liability arose. According to the petitioner though the liability as per Ext.P6 was Rs.2,75,000/-, the cheque was allegedly issued only for Rs.2,00,000/-. The prosecution was also filed alleging the liability as Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, the amount covered by the cheque being a sum different from the liability disclosed from Ext.P6, the prosecution is liable to be defeated.

¶23

On a glance at the complaint filed to prosecute the petitioner, it is revealed that the disputed cheque which formed the basis for the prosecution on hand was issued towards discharge of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total liability of Rs.2,75,000/- as reflected from Ext.P6. Therefore, the accused cannot be heard to contend that a totally inconsistent case from the one disclosed from Ext.P6 was putforth by the complainant and the prosecution case is defeated for that reason.

¶24

Though confronted on several aspects, the evidence of PW1 remained unshaken. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court as well as the appellate court in the case on hand.

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.941/2019 4

¶26

Execution of the cheque has been satisfactorily established by PW1. In the said circumstances, the accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The finding of guilt was also confirmed by the appellate court and sentence alone was modified. Sustainable grounds having not been made out by the revision petitioner, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

As requested by the learned counsel for the appellant, notice was issued by this Court to the 1^st respondent directing him to appear before this Court to see chances for an amicable settlement of the issues. Notice issued was received by him but he did not turn up. Therefore, attempt for an amicable settlement also failed.

¶28

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

Erayankod Panayanthatta Pushpajan v. Nettoor Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erayankod Panayanthatta Pushpajan v. Nettoor Bharathi

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

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Azad Vs the State of Kerala

Prathapan, Vs the State of Kerala

M/S Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd Vs E.Suma Divine

Balan Vaidyar Vs Viswabharathy Jublee

K.Kunhavilla Vs C.Nafeesa