Disposed

Shaji Hussain K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a Criminal Revision Petition challenging convictions in a cheque dishonour case. The court rejected the petitioner's defense that the cheque was merely for security. It held the cheque was for an existing debt and found no reason to interfere with the conviction but modified the sentence, ordering the payment of compensation and deferring execution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay compensation of ₹1,50,000 and undergo simple imprisonment in default; proceedings deferred for four months.

Shaji Hussain K 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 N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA,

¶5

1945

¶6

CRL.REV.PET NO. 905 OF 2023

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 51/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / I ADDITIONAL MACT

¶8

CC 205/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(SPECIAL COURT-MARKLIST CASES)

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶10

SHAJI HUSSAIN K., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O KASSIM HUSSAIN, D4, NEW CASTLE TOWER, BEHIND THANKAMMA STADIUM, PIPELINE ROAD, THRIVUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL ADITYA DEV NIKITHA SURESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶14

2 SREE GOKULAM CHIT FINANCE CO (P) LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EMPIRE HOUSE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT ULLOOR., PIN – 600004

¶15

BY SMT.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P. No.905/2023

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

---------------------------------------------------

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.905 of 2023

¶22

---------------------------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of ₹1,50,000/- to the complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, as per judgment dated 07.02.2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶26

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.51/2018 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The Additional

¶27

Crl.R.P. No.905/2023

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

Sessions Judge-IV dismissed the appeal as per judgment dated 16.08.2023. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the orders of the courts below.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent and perused the pleadings in the revision petition.

¶32

The complainant's representative PW1 has deposed

¶33

that the amount in question was due to the complainantcompany. Ext.P3 cheque was issued to ensure repayment.

¶34

The Manager of the Branch of the Bank with which the accused was engaged in financial transactions, was examined. He himself has witnessed execution of Ext.P3 cheque. From the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and the documents produced, execution of the cheque is clearly established.

¶35

The petitioner had admitted that he had issued cheque to the complainant-company. The case of the petitioner was that cheques were given as security. The courts

¶36

Crl.R.P. No.905/2023

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

below noted that the defence of the petitioner is wavering and does not make his version probable. The statement of the petitioner that he had handed over blank cheques as security which were never demanded back after discharge of his liabilities, is difficult to believe. The fact remains that execution of the cheque was never denied by the petitioner. The consideration for issuing the cheque is not in dispute. Therefore, it has to be held that the cheque was issued in discharge of an existing debt.

¶39

After considering all the afore aspects of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. However, in the facts of the case, sentence awarded is modified. The petitioner-accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the raising of the court and to pay a compensation of ₹1,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

¶40

Crl.R.P. No.905/2023

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

for six months. Proceedings pursuant to the judgment shall stand deferred for a period of four months. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount within four months from today and shall appear before the court below on 22.01.2024 for execution of sentence.

¶43

Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

sss

Shaji Hussain K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Hussain K 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

P. Salimkhan Vs Herchan Lawrence D’Cruz

Abhinandh, Vs State of Kerala

Ajay @ Ajayan, Vs State of Kerala

Mini I. Vs Principal Secretary

Sunitha Kumari C.S Vs the State of Kerala

Yamuna Vs State of Kerala