Allowed

M/S.Karrthekai Trading Company v. S.Natarajan (57)

Madras HC12 Apr 2017CRL MP/5215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision filed against conviction, sentence, and order directing payment of entire cheque amount as compensation under Section 138 NI Act. Court suspended sentence and compensation and exempted surrender pending revision.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence, imprisonment, and payment of Rs.9,00,000/- compensation were suspended; petitioner released on bail; surrender exempted.

M/S.Karrthekai Trading Company Vs S.Natarajan (57) — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Crl.M.P.Nos.5215 and 5216 of 2017 in Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2017

¶3

V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,

¶4

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

¶5

one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam, by a Judgment dated 28.01.2016 in C.C.No.214 of 2007. Challenging the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.31 of 2016 on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, and the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, by a Judgment dated 24.03.2017. Aggrieved which, the present revision has been filed.

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.5215 of 2017 has been filed seeking suspension of

¶7

sentence imposed on the petitioner and Crl.M.P.No.5216 of 2017 has been filed seeking exemption from surrendering before the trial court.

¶8

¶9

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶10

that even though the trial court convicted the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence, the lower appellate court ordered compensation of the entire cheque amount, which is not permissible in law.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶12

perused the impugned judgment and the materials available on record carefully.

¶13

Taking into consideration of the submission of the learned

¶14

counsel, since there are some arguable points involved in the revision, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of imprisonment including the payment of compensation.

¶15

Accordingly, pending revision, substantive sentence of imprisonment and payment of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation, are suspended and the Proprietor of the petitioner company is released on bail on

¶16

his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with

¶17

two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,

¶18

¶19

Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Gobichettipalayam, with further condition that he shall appear before the said court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The surrender of the Proprietor of

¶20

the petitioner company before the trial Court is exempted.

12.04.2017

mrp

V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,

¶25

mrp

¶26

Crl.M.P.Nos.5215 and 5216 of 2017 in Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2017

¶27

12.04.2017

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Karrthekai Trading Company v. S.Natarajan (57)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Karrthekai Trading Company v. S.Natarajan (57)

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

R.Selvaraju, Aged 50 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Dr.K.R.Bhuvaneswari Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Mohammed Rafi Vs G.Hasina Sultana

M/S.Karrthekai Trading Company Vs a.R.Sundar, Aged 54 Years

Vvijayakumar, 36 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Padmanabhan Vs the Assistant Registrar of