Partly allowed

Vinod.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/18/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The conviction for cheque bounce under Section 138 NI Act was confirmed, but the one-month imprisonment sentence was reduced to seven days since the accused had already served that period.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; one-month imprisonment reduced to seven days; accused to be released if he has already served seven days.

Vinod.T Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.18 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 288/2006 DATED 07-07-2007 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT ,KOLLAM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1049/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR

¶8

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

VINOD.T AGED 47 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, RATHRIMUTTOM, ALANCHERY, ALAYAMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. BHASKARAN, PARANKIMAMVILAYIL, THURAVOOR, ODANAVATTOM, VELIYAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SMTSHEEBA JOSEPH SRI.S.SREEJITH (S-3453)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, RAM MOHAN PALACE COMPOUND, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 H ABDUL AZEES VILIKULATHUVILA VEEDU, COLLEGE JUNCTION, ANCHAL, ALAYAMON P.O., DISTRICT, PIN-691 306.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV R1 BY SRI CK PRASAD-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.18 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

Crl.R.P No. 18 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 09^th day of January,2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No. 1049/2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur.

¶23

The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and convicted him thereunder. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also directed him to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶24

The petitioner filed Crl.A No. 288/2006 before the Court of Session, Kollam challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.

¶25

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.18 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilty, conviction and sentence passed against him by the courts below, this revision petition is filed by the accused.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent/complainant.

¶29

The case of the complainant was as follows: The accused owed an amount of Rs.90,000/- to him. The accused issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- in discharge of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. He did not pay the amount.

¶30

During the trial of the case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 documents were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

¶31

When examined as PW1, the complainant gave evidence that the accused had borrowed Rs.90,000/- from him and in discharge of that liability, the accused had issued him Ext.P1 cheque. No contra evidence was adduced by the accused. The trial court as well as the

¶32

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.18 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

appellate court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The plea of the accused was that he had given the cheque to another person in connection with some other transaction. He did not adduce any evidence to prove that plea. In such circumstances, I find no impropriety or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed.

¶35

The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also directed him to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The sentence imposed on the accused stands confirmed by the appellate court. During the hearing of the revision petition, learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant has submitted that the complainant has received the entire amount due from the accused and that he has got no grievance against the accused. An affidavit is also filed by the second respondent/complainant to that effect. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court in the case and he has been in jail now for a period of seven days. Learned counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to restrict the sentence on

¶36

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.18 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

the accused to simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Considering the fact that the accused has already paid the entire amount due to the complainant, the request made by the counsel for the petitioner as above can be accepted.

¶39

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is confirmed. The sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month imposed on the petitioner by the trial court and also the direction made by the trial court that he shall pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant, are set aside. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. If the petitioner is in jail and if he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of seven days in execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court, he shall be released forthwith, if his detention in jail is not required in connection with any other case.

¶40

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶41

lsn

Vinod.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod.T v. State of Kerala

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

Jinas P.A Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Najeeb, Vs the State of Kerala

Nalini Mohanan K.M, Vs State of Kerala

Sujith @ Anu Vs State of Kerala

Vijaya Agencies Vs the State of Kerala

Ambili.R Vs Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd.