Partly allowed

Jinimol v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition in part, holding no ground to interfere with the conviction. It granted an extension of time to remit the fine amount and reduced the imprisonment sentence to the minimum as the petition is reasonable given the delayed nature of the cheque.

What did the court decide?

The revision petitioner is allowed to remit the fine within eight months; the sentence of imprisonment is reduced, and coercive steps are deferred for eight months.

Jinimol Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.RP.784/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.784 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 20/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 184/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, IDUKKI

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶11

JINIMOL AGED 41 YEARS W/O.BIJU, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, BETHEL P.O., IDUKKI 685 514

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶15

2 SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA TOWN ROAD, MANGATTUKAVALA, THODUPUZHA 685 584

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

P SREEJA V.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.RP.784/2020

¶20

¶21

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶22

CRL.R.P.No. 784 of 2020

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2020

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed on him, as per the judgment in C.C.No.184 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2014 of the Sessions Court, ThodupuzhaKasaragod. The judgment convicting the revision petitioner was rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation was that, towards discharge of a debt, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.2,58,948 /- in favour of the 2^nd respondent, which, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Even though statutory notice was issued, calling upon the revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the demand was not met.

¶26

The trial court after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the 2^nd respondent, found the cheque to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner was therefore found guilty, convicted and sentenced to

¶27

CRL.RP.784/2020

¶28

¶29

undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,58,948/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to the 2^nd respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶30

The appeal filed by the revision petitioner was partly allowed modifying the sentence till rising of the court and fine of Rs.2,58,948/- and to undergo simple imprison for two months.

¶31

Having heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner at length, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial as well as appellate court.

¶32

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner then submitted that, if this Court is not prepared to entertain the revision, the time limit for remittance of the fine amount may be extended and the sentence of imprisonment reduced to the minimum. I find the request to be reasonable. The facts and circumstances warrant imposition of only the minimum sentence of imprisonment. The cheque being of the year 2016, the time limit for payment of the cheque amount can be extended by a further period of eight months. In view of the limited relief being granted, notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

¶33

In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner shall remit the fine amount of Rs.2,58,948/- within eight months from today. On remittance, the amount shall be paid to the 2^nd respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner shall pay

¶34

CRL.RP.784/2020

¶35

¶36

the fine before expiry of the eight months period, failing which the reliefs granted under this judgment will stand withdrawn. In view of the time granted by this Court, coercive steps based on the impugned judgments, shall be deferred for a period of eight months.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶39

vgs

Jinimol v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinimol 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Vs the State of Kerala

Anjalidev, Vs Arun

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup Vs Gopinathan Pillai

M/S Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala

Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala

M/S Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala