Dismissed

Surendran.M v. C.Mohanan

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/551/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition, affirming the conviction under Section 138 NI Act and confirming the appellate court's reduced sentence of seven days-extension imprisonment with a fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; two months period granted to pay compensation.

What the court decided

Surendran.M Vs C.Mohanan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 496/2009 DATED 07-03-2011 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 110/2008 DATED 25-07-2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, OTTAPPALAM

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶11

SURENDRAN.M AGED 56 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYARAM SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 C.MOHANAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. C. RAMASWAMI MUTHALI, MUTHALIYAR STREET, P.O. KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 679 104.

¶15

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

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON 24.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.551 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case S.T No. 110/2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class MagistrateII, Ottapalam.

¶24

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 him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also directed him to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the complainant and directed that, in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

¶25

The petitioner filed Crl.A.No. 496/2009 before the Court of Session, Palakkad challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act but

¶26

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

modified the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The appellate court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

¶29

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilty and conviction made against him by the courts below and the sentence imposed on him by the appellate court, the accused in the case has filed this revision petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶31

The case of the complainant is as follows: The accused had borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the complainant on 12.04.2005. In discharge of that liability, the accused issued him a cheque dated 14.10.2005 for that amount. 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 lawyer notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. He did not send any reply. He did not pay the amount of the cheque.

¶32

During the trial of the case, the complainant got himself

¶33

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶34

¶35

examined as PW1 and a witness was examined on his side as PW2. Exts. P1 to P5 series documents were also marked on his side. DW1 was examined on the side of the accused and Exts.D1 and D2 documents were marked on his side. Ext.X1 document was also marked.

¶36

When examined as PW1, the complainant gave evidence regarding the borrowal of the amount from him by the accused and the execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused and delivery of the same to him in discharge of the liability. PW1 gave evidence that the accused had signed the cheque in his presence.

¶37

The plea of the accused was that the complainant had somehow obtained his cheque and that the complainant forged his signature in the cheque and fraudulently filed the case.

¶38

The accused has no explanation as to how the complainant obtained his cheque which was issued to his account from his bank. Though PW1 gave evidence that, the accused signed the cheque in his presence, the accused did not take any steps to prove that he is not the author of the signature in the cheque. No steps were taken by him to send the cheque for expert examination. The trial court as well as the appellate court compared the signature in Ext.P1 cheque with the signatures of the accused in the documents available before the court

¶39

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶40

¶41

and came to the conclusion that the cheque bears the signature of the accused.

¶42

Once execution of the cheque by the accused is proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act comes into play. The burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption. No satisfactory evidence was adduced by the accused to rebut the presumption.

¶43

The accused had received the statutory notice sent to him by the complainant. The postman who served the notice on the accused was examined as PW2 by the complainant. His evidence would show that the notice was served on the accused. The accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice. If he did not owe any amount to the complainant and if the complainant had forged his signature in his cheque which the complainant had somehow obtained, the accused would have definitely sent a reply to the statutory notice. The very fact that he did not send any reply to the statutory notice leads to the inference that the version of the complainant is true.

¶44

The courts below have properly analysed the evidence and come to the right conclusion. I find no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. This Court would be loath to interfere with the concurrent findings on facts reached by the courts below, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶45

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.551 OF 2019

¶46

¶47

Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed.

¶48

The appellate court has shown maximum leniency to the petitioner/accused in the matter of awarding sentence. The sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the appellate court does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶49

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court is also confirmed. The petitioner is granted a period of two months form today to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant.

¶50

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶51

lsn

Surendran.M v. C.Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Surendran.M v. C.Mohanan

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

Thajudheen Vs State of Kerala

Aji Raj C.A. Vs State of Kerala

Renjith M.T Vs State of Kerala

Hakeem Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Abdul Razack Vs Selvarajan