Criminal Revision Petition No. 232 of 2000 · Kerala High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Outcome
Conviction upheld
The conviction is confirmed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The counsel has pleaded for modification of the sentence. In the circumstances, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.GEORGE KUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -----------------------------------------------------------------
P.K.KUTTAPPAN, PAPDINJAREMALAYIL SREEKANDAMANGALAM BHAGOM, PADINJATHUMBHAGOM KARA ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV. SRI.SARVOTHAMANAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP1679232/2000 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.1358/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO.232/2000 DISMISSED
21.11.2007 SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.R.UDAYABHANU, J --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.232 of 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2007
O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced, as modified by the appellate court, to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued two cheques each for Rs.10,000/- towards discharge of the liability for having purchased fresh fish from the complainant and that which when presented got dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the accused.
The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5.
Operative part
I find that PW1 has testified as to the transaction. The documents produced including dishonour memo would show that the cheques were dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the accused. PW1 has testified that lawyer notice demanding CRRP232/2000 2 the amount was sent and the same was received by the accused and no reply notice was received. The postal receipt and acknowledgment card were produced. I find that the execution of the cheques stands proved. There is no rebuttal evidence and hence the statutory presumptions stand unrebutted. I find that there are no grounds to disturb the concurrent findings of the court below. The conviction is confirmed.
The counsel has pleaded for modification of the sentence. In the circumstances, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner is granted two months' time to remit the amount of compensation. He shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor on 21.1.2008 to receive sentence. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE CRRP232/2000 3 K.R.UDAYABHANU, J Crl.R.P.No.613/1999 ORDER 19/11/2007 CRRP232/2000 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The conviction is confirmed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 21 Nov 2007. The bench was K R UDAYABHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.