Partly allowed

Sanoop.K v. Jafeer.T.K

Kerala HC8 Feb 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/1145/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138. Confirming the conviction, the court modified the sentence, granting time to discharge liability and setting imprisonment till the rising of the court to replace the original jail term, while retaining the fine. The petitioner must appear to undergo substantive

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs.60,000. Petitioner to appear within three weeks for substantive sentence.

Sanoop.K Vs Jafeer.T.K — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 19TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1145 OF 2019

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2018 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.75/2015
OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT -ADHOC -II,
THALASSERY AND ALSO AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2015 IN S.T.C
9093/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

¶7

NO.III,KANNUR)

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SANOOP.K

¶10

AGED 35 YEARS

¶11

S/O. SUNDARAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAZHAKUNNU, P.O
KOTTALI, KANNUR 670 016

¶12

BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1JAFEER.T.K
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, THANISSERIKANDY, PODUVACHERI,
KANNOTHUMCHIRA P.O, KANNUR.

¶15

2STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP REKHA S

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1145 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in STC.No.9093/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kannur, and confirmed in Crl.A.No.75/2015 of the Additional District and Sessions Court(Adhoc-II), Thalassery dated 31.12.2018 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶23

The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). In default, simple imprisonment for one month was also incorporated. This conviction was confirmed by the appellate court in toto. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner approached this court. After considering the entire facts, this court concurred with the findings of the court and accept the request of the petitioner for granting time to discharge the entire liability. The petitioner was granted three months time by order dated 30.10.2019, for depositing the

¶24

¶25

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1145 OF 2019

¶26

fine amount.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though I am inclined to confirm the conviction and also the findings arrived at by the court below, the sentence needs to be modified. Since the court below has imposed a fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) for a cheque amount of Rs.60,000/(Rupees sixty thousand only) and the amount has been reported to be deposited by the petitioner on 02.12.2021, I am inclined to reduce the imprisonment till rising of the court. All other part of the sentence will remain unchanged.

¶28

In the result, Crl.R.P is allowed in part, confirming the conviction. Sentence is modified as imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/(Rupees sixty thousand only). Since the fine amount has been remitted, it shall be released to the first respondent herein on his application. The revision petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within three weeks

¶29

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1145 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to

¶32

undergo substantive sentence.

¶33

Crl.R.P. is allowed in part.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

R.AV

Sanoop.K v. Jafeer.T.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanoop.K v. Jafeer.T.K

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

The President, Vs Sreekumar

Rajeevan.E., Vs State of Kerala

Valsan Jerome Vs Anotny Titus

Vinod Kumar M Vs C.J. Chandra Bose

B.Mohammed Jamal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, Vs the District Collector