Partly allowed

D.Baskaran, M/A-57 Yrs., v. M.Ravisekar, M/a- Yrs.

Madras HC17 Apr 2017CRL MP/5311/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone and released the petitioner on bail pending the disposal of a criminal revision petition filed against a conviction and sentence for chequeshoping under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioner released on bail of Rs.10,000 with sureties and exempted from surrender.

D.Baskaran, M/A-57 Yrs., Vs M.Ravisekar, M/a- Yrs. — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Seventeenth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.5311 of 2017

¶7

IN CRL RC.598/2017

¶8

D.BASKARAN [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

¶10

M.RAVISEKAR [ RESPONDENT ]

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in Criminal Revision Case No.598/2017 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu made in C.C.NO.130 of 2009 dated 19.09.2016 in convicting the petitioner herein under section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo two years Regiorous Imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-[Rupees Five Lakhs] as compensation as per section 357(3) Cr.P.C.within a period of one month to the respondent/complainant herein failing which the accused shall undergo one month R.I. Which was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.Appeal NO.45 of 2016 dated 24.03.2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the above CRL RC.598/2017

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.Revision Case No.598/2017 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.D.N.DURGASHA, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-

¶13

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years R.I. and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, by a judgment dated 29.09.2016 in C.C.No.130 of 2009. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 24.03.2017. Aggrieved which, the present revision has been filed.

¶14

Crl.M.P.No.5311 of 2017 has been filed seeking suspension of sentence imposed on the petitioner and Crl.M.P.No.5312 of 2017 has

¶15

been filed seeking exemption from surrendering before the trial court.

¶16

He would further contend that the petitioner had not borrowed any amount and the cheque which has been given to the defacto complainant in order to settle the dispute between the brother of the petitioner herein and it has been mis-used by the defacto complainant. Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the defacto complainant.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and the materials available on record carefully.

¶18

Taking into consideration of the submission of the learned counsel, since there are some arguable points involved in the revision, I am inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone.

¶19

Accordingly, pending revision, substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, 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 petitioner before the trial Court is exempted.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

17/04/2017

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, CHENGALPATTU.

¶27

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, CHENGALPATTU.

¶28

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]

¶29

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE.

¶30

+2C.C. to M/S.D.N.DURGASHA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NOS.6884

¶31

Order in CRL MP.5311/2017 in CRL RC.598/2017 Date :17/04/2017

¶32

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶33

MK:18/04/2017

D.Baskaran, M/A-57 Yrs., v. M.Ravisekar, M/a- Yrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Baskaran, M/A-57 Yrs., v. M.Ravisekar, M/a- Yrs.

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

Palanisamy Vs Ravichandran

Govindarajan, Aged 56 Years, Vs v.R.Manimaran

Sathishkumar, 34 Years Vs S.Mehala

Kesavan, Aged 61 Years, Vs the Insepctor of Police

Viswapriya Financial Services Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Muthuswami Vs Venkatesan S/O Narayanswami