Partly allowed

M. Najeeb v. P. Davood

Kerala HC3 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/67/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition partially. It affirmed the conviction and substantive sentence of imprisonment but modified the fine reduced from Rs.6,00,000 to Rs.5,25,000, directing payment within four months to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Fine reduced to Rs.5,25,000; payment to be remitted within four months; first respondent may apply for release of earlier deposit.

M. Najeeb Vs P. Davood — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 67 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 367/2012 OF SESSIONS COURT THALASSERY IN ST 1847/2012 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 M. NAJEEB AGED 30 YEARS AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MAMBALLY ABDUL SALAM,MUMBALLY HOUSE,KADAVATHUR POST, THALASSERY, KANNUR

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 P. DAVOOD AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. T.K. YOUSUF HAJI, RUKHIYATH MANZIL, PARAL POST, THALASSERY, KANNUR.

¶12

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

¶13

BY ADV. M.C. ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.67 OF 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 03^rd day of July, 2023

¶20

The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, the 1^st respondent alleged that, after borrowing an amount of Rs.4,99,000/- from him, the revision petitioner issued a cheque in discharge of the debt. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even though statutory notice was issued demanding payment, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount.

¶21

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 six months and to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/-. The fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the

¶22

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.67 OF 2018

¶24

complainant. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and maintained the sentence of fine as such. The default sentence of six months simple imprisonment was reduced to three months.

¶25

Although learned Counsel for the revision petitioner raised various contentions on merits, having carefully scrutinised the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt and conviction. On the other hand, I find merit in the challenge against the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court. It is pertinent to note that, even though the cheque amount was Rs.4,99,000/-, the trial court imposed a fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, without stating any valid reason. The appellate court also committed the same mistake. In spite of observing that in a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the purpose will be served on payment of the cheque

¶26

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.67 OF 2018

¶28

amount, the appellate court retained the fine amount as such.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the trial court is having the discretion to impose a bigger amount than the cheque amount as fine or compensation. Although the said submission is correct, while exercising such discretion and directing payment of a bigger amount as fine, the trial court should state the reason for doing so. No such reason is stated in the impugned judgment.

¶30

There is also merit in the contention that, after observing that the purpose of a complaint under Section 138 is served by the accused being directed to pay the cheque amount, the appellate court ought not have retained Rs.6,00,000/- as fine. At the same time, the fact that the cheque is of the year 2010 and 13 years have elapsed after issuance of the cheque should also be taken into account.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, in the event of this Court not being

¶32

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.67 OF 2018

¶34

satisfied with the challenge raised in the revision petition, at least the time for payment of the fine amount may be extended.

¶35

Taking into consideration all relevant factors, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The finding of guilt, conviction and the substantive sentence of imprisonment, till rising of the court are affirmed. The fine amount is modified and reduced to Rs.5,25,000/-, which the revision petitioner shall pay/remit within a period of four months. While reckoning the amount of fine to be remitted, due credit shall be given to Rs,1,20,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court. The fine, if remitted or realised, shall be paid to the 1^st respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner shall pay/remit the fine and appear before the trial court, for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, within four months. If the revision petitioner fails to pay/remit the fine amount within the time granted, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.67 OF 2018

¶37

¶38

three months. The 1^st respondent can submit an application for release of the amount deposited by the revision petitioner. If such application is filed, appropriate orders thereon shall be passed by the trial court expeditiously.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶41

NB/3-7

M. Najeeb v. P. Davood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Najeeb v. P. Davood

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

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Ashkar Ali Vs Sumaina

Ashkar Ali Vs Sumaina

Rejeesh Vs Reshma Sreedharan

Kerala Financial Corporation Vs Abdul Rahiman

Philip Mathew Vs State of Kerala