Partly allowed

S.Sreekumar v. C.R.Ramachandran

Kerala HC15 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/658/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court for cheque dishonor. The fine was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation, with three months to pay in default of simple imprisonment for three months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment till rising of court confirmed; fine set aside; compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 directed in default of which simple imprisonment for 3 months ordered.

S.Sreekumar Vs C.R.Ramachandran — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.658 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 153/2017 DATED 12-03-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 140/2011 DATED 20-11-2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

S.SREEKUMAR AGED 44 YEARS S/O SREEDHARAN, PUTHUVALACHIRA, THOTTAPPALLY, PURAKKADU VILLAGE, AMABALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 C.R.RAMACHANDRAN KARUVATHIL, KARIKKAD, THANNEERMUKKOM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.VIDYA R1 BY ADV. SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.SREELEKSHMI SANALKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SHRI.SHANIL P.C. R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.A.ANJU R1 BY ADV. SHRI. SYAM JESAN SRI AJITH MURALI-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.01.2020, THE COURT ON 15.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶18

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

************************ Crl.R.P.No.658 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.140/2011 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First

¶23

Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala.

¶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 directed him to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and ordered that, in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

¶25

¶26

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶27

The petitioner filed Crl.A.No.153/2017 before the

¶28

Court of Session, Alappuzha 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 modified the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The appellate court sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellate court also directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be given to the complainant as compensation.

¶29

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

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent/complainant.

¶31

The case of the complainant is as follows: In discharge of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- borrowed from the

¶32

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶33

¶34

complainant, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.10.2010 for that amount in favour of the complainant. When 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

When examined as PW1, the complainant gave evidence that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/from him on 24.07.2010. He also gave evidence that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- in his favour in discharge of that liability.

¶37

PW1 was not cross-examined by the accused during the trial of the case. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and on the basis of the unchallenged testimony of

¶38

¶39

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶40

PW1, the trial court found that the accused had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant in discharge of that liability.

¶41

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused took a plea that he had no financial transaction with the complainant and that he had entrusted a blank cheque with the Manager of a school when his wife got appointment in that school in the vacancy which occurred due to the resignation of the daughter of the complainant. The accused took a plea that the complainant obtained the aforesaid cheque and misused it. No evidence was adduced by the accused to prove the aforesaid plea.

¶42

The accused had received the statutory notice sent to him by the complainant. He did not send any reply. If as a matter of fact, he did not owe any amount to the complainant and if he had not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant, the accused would have sent a reply to the statutory notice. The very fact that he remained silent and inactive on receiving the

¶43

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶44

¶45

notice from the complainant is a crucial circumstance to find that the case set up by the complainant is true.

¶46

It appears that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate court directed the complainant to appear before the trial court for the purpose of cross-examination and thereafter, he was cross-examined by the accused. Thereafter, the appellate court appreciated the evidence adduced by the complainant, including the evidence given by him in the cross-examination and came to the finding that the version of the complainant is true.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any infirmity, impropriety or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the appellate court. In such circumstance, conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed.

¶48

The appellate court has set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the trial court and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of

¶49

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶50

¶51

payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. However, learned counsel on both sides submitted that, during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. In view of this submission, the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court has to be modified.

¶52

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court imposed on the petitioner/accused by the appellate court is also confirmed. The sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court is set aside. The petitioner/accused is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant. It is ordered that, in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner/accused is granted a period of three months from today to pay the entire amount of compensation to the

¶53

Crl.R..P.No.658/2019

¶54

¶55

complainant. If the petitioner/accused has already paid any amount as compensation to the complainant, it shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation ordered to be paid by him as per the order of this Court in this revision petition.

¶56

(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶57

jsr

S.Sreekumar v. C.R.Ramachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sreekumar v. C.R.Ramachandran

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

Madhusoodhanan K Vs Sree Guruvayoorappan Chits and Finance Co. (P) Ltd.

Malabar Agro Industry Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs Ratheesh

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Busher Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh K Joy Vs the State Bank of Travancore