Partly allowed

Sunno Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part, confirming the conviction in a cheque bounce case but reducing the imprisonment to one day and enhancing the fine to Rs.65,000 with three months time for payment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one day; fine enhanced to Rs.65,000; three months time granted for payment in lieu of immediate jail.

Sunno Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 377 OF 2023

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO 91/2018 OF DISTRICT COURT
& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
CC 437/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, IDUKKI
REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶5

SUNNO ABRAHAM
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM, THANNIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUKKUDAM P.O.,
KAMBILIKANDAM, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685604
BY ADVS.
BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
CHARUTHA BHAIJU
GEORGIE SIMON
CHANDHANA BHAIJU
BASIL SAJAN
FATHIM NAVAS
BASIL SCARIA

¶6

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶7

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2BIJU
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH,
KADAPPOOR HOUSE, PADAMUGHAM P.O, MOONGAPPARA,
VATHIKKUDY VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685604
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, M.C.ASHI

¶8

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

CRL.REV.PET NO. 377 OF 2023

¶10

¶11

JUDGMENT Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2023

¶12

The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.437 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki. The case originated from a complaint filed by the second respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal contentions found the revision petitioner guilty and thereupon, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The fine, if paid or realised, was directed to be given to the second respondent as compensation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence was allowed in part by confirming the conviction and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to six months. The fine amount and the default sentence were maintained as such. Aggrieved, this criminal revision petition is filed.

¶13

¶14

CRL.REV.PET NO. 377 OF 2023

¶15

I heard Adv.Basil Chandy Vavachan for the revision petitioner and Adv.Vinod Kumar for the second respondent.

¶16

Although learned Counsel for the petitioner attempted to assail the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, having carefully scrutinised those judgments, I find the courts below have appreciated the evidence and applied the law correctly. As such, the judgments do not warrant interference in exercise of the revision power vested with this Court.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised an alternative plea that, if this Court not convinced about the grounds urged, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced and the petitioner granted some time for paying the fine.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the second respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the cheque was issued way back in the year 2016.

¶19

CRL.REV.PET NO. 377 OF 2023

¶20

4

¶21

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I

¶22

am of the opinion that the equities can be balanced by the sentence being reduced and the petitioner being directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards fine.

¶23

In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed in part. The finding of guilt and the conviction is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment for a day, till rising of the Court. The sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) and the revision petitioner is granted three months time for paying / remitting the enhanced fine amount. The revision petitioner shall pay/remit the fine amount and appear before the trial court for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court within three months. In case of default in remitting the fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If the fine amount is remitted in Court, the same shall be paid to the second respondent as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The coercive

¶24

CRL.REV.PET NO. 377 OF 2023

¶25

5

¶26

proceedings, if any pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for three months.

¶27

V.G.ARUN

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

RK

Sunno Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunno Abraham 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aby Geevarghese Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Praveen, S/O.Thamarakshan, C.NO.3533 Vs State of Kerala

Padmakumar @ Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Seethalakshmi Vs Abdul Majeed

Dhanya Jacob, Vs Johin Mathew

Muhammed Kunhi Vs State of Kerala