V.RAMKUMAR v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed
Case at a glance
Outcome
Conviction upheld
I do not find any error,illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrentlyby the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 357(1), 357(3), 397, 401
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The courts below have concurrently held that thecheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of thecomplainant, that the complainant had validly complied with Crl.R..P. No. 650/2009-:2:-clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act.and that the Revision…
- Para 55. What now survives for consideration is the legality ofthe sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light ofthe recent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of anorder…
Judgment
V.RAMKUMAR, J.======================Crl.R.P. No. 650 of 2009======================Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009
O R D E RIn this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No. 929 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla challenges the conviction entered and the sentencepassed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act').The cheque amount was Rs.1,90,000/-. Thefine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court isRs.1,90,000/-.
I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitionerand the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel appearing for the RevisionPetitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.
Operative part
The courts below have concurrently held that thecheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of thecomplainant, that the complainant had validly complied with Crl.R..P. No. 650/2009-:2:-clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act.and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make thepayment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Boththe courts have considered and rejected the defence set up bythe revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The saidconviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of theoral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrentlyby the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.
What now survives for consideration is the legality ofthe sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light ofthe recent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of anorder for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act therevision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,95,000/-(Rupees one lakh and ninety five thousand only). The Crl.R..P. No. 650/2009-:3:-said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1)Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit thesaid fine amount before the Court below or directly pay thecompensation to the complainant within seven months fromtoday and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court incase of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the saidamount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer simpleimprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner. Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: I do not find any error,illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrentlyby the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 357(1), 357(3), 397, 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 18 Feb 2009. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
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.