Allowed

Jalaja Sreenivasan v. the State Bank of India, Ernakulam

Kerala HC12 Oct 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/2707/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against convictions and sentences in a cheque-bounce case. The court accepted the bank's submission that the debt was paid and the account closed, and compounded the offence under Section 147 of the N.I.Act to meet the ends of justice. Convictions were set aside and bail bonds cancelled.

What did the court decide?

The offence was compounded under Section 147 of the N.I.Act; concurrent conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds cancelled.

Jalaja Sreenivasan Vs the State Bank of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 20TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1323/2002 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF

¶7

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM

¶8

CRA 680/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

JALAJA SREENIVASAN,W/O.K.SREENIVASAN, SREEVIHAR, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17

¶11

BY ADV SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER FRANCIS CHERIAN, K.T.D.C. BUILDING, ERNAKULAM

¶14

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

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.AMAL GEORGE SRI.GEORGE THOMAS MEVADASR. SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA SMT.RINU JOSE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶18

¶19

(Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2023)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and legality of the judgments passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam (Appellate Court) in Crl.Appeal No.680/2010 and by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (Trial Court) in C.C.No.1323/2002 convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, “N.I.Act”).

¶22

: The prosecution case in brief

¶23

The 1^st respondent-bank had filed the complaint against the revision petitioner alleging that she had

¶24

¶25

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶26

availed a term loan for Rs.4,00,000/- to construct a house. The revision petitioner defaulted in repaying the installments. Later, in discharge of the liability, the revision petitioner had issued Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The cheque on presentation to the bank for collection got dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the revision petitioner's bank account. Although the 1^st respondent-bank had issued Ext.P3 lawyer notice, the revision petitioner failed to pay the demanded amount. Hence, she committed the above offence.

¶27

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The revision petitioner denied the substance of accusation made against her. The 1^st respondent-bank examined PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances put against her in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, she marked Exts.D1 to D5 in

¶28

¶29

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶30

evidence.

¶31

The Trial Court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay a fine of Rs.12,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. If the fine was realised, the same to be paid to the 1^st respondent-bank as compensation.

¶32

The Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment modified the substantive sentence to till the rising of the court and directed the revision petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the 1^st respondent-bank

¶33

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶34

It is questioning the judgments of the courts below, the present revision petition is filed.

¶35

Heard; Sri.Denizen Komath, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Sri.George Thomas Mevada, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st

¶36

¶37

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶38

respondent-bank and Smt.S.Seetha, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent-bank very fairly submitted that the revision petitioner has paid the entire outstanding amount of Rs.3,11,593/- to the 1^st respondent bank on 29.11.2018 and the loan account has been closed. Therefore, the 1^st respondent-bank has no further claim against the revision petitioner. Hence, the 1^st respondent-bank has no objection in the offence committed by the revision petitioner being compounded under Section 147 of the N.I.Act. The said submission is recorded.

¶40

In addition to Section 147 of the N.I.Act, this Court, in Soban vs. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179] after referring to a plethora of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, has held that in order to secure the ends of justice, criminal proceedings can be quashed even after an order of conviction is passed by invoking the plenary powers of this Court.

¶41

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶43

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made across the Bar, particularly the submission that the 1^st respondent-bank has no objection in the offence committed by the revision petitioner being compounded under Section 147 of the N.I.Act, I am inclined to allow the revision petition by compounding the offence, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶44

In the result:

¶45

(i) The revision petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The concurrent conviction and sentence

¶47

imposed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.680/2010 and by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in C.C.No.1323/2002 as against the revision petitioner are set aside by way of composition under Section 147 of the N.I.Act read with Section 320 (8) of the

¶48

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2707 OF 2011

¶49

¶50

Cr.P.C.

¶51

(iii) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner and her sureties stand hereby cancelled.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶54

rkc/12.10.23

Jalaja Sreenivasan v. the State Bank of India, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaja Sreenivasan v. the State Bank of India, Ernakulam

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

Rema Babu Vs State of Kerala

Thampi Varghese Vs Jiby Sara Joseph

The Kollam Co-Operative Agrl.Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.B.Shaji @ Kainakari Shaji Vs L.P.Prakash

N.K.Surendran Vs K.v.Rukhiya and Another

Anto N.A. Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation & an