Criminal Revision Petition No. 916 of 2009 · Kerala High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner
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 withclauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act andthat the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to…
- Para 55. What now survives for consideration is the legality ofthe sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light ofa recent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty V. P. Abdullakoya (2008 (1) KLT 851) defaultsentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Crl.R.P. No. 916 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this the 16th day of March, 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.47/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,Perinthalmanna challenges the conviction entered and thesentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.2,00,000/-The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court isRs.2,00,000/-.
I heard the learned counsel for the RevisionPetitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel appearing for the RevisionPetitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.
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 withclauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act andthat the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the paymentwithin 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the Crl.R.P. 916 /09 -2-courts have considered the matter and rejected the defence setup by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. Thesaid conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation ofthe oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recordedconcurrently by the courts below and the same is herebyconfirmed.
Operative part
What now survives for consideration is the legality ofthe sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light ofa recent decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty V. P. Abdullakoya (2008 (1) KLT 851) defaultsentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order forcompensation 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 the revisionpetitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs). The said fine shall be paid ascompensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revisionpetitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amountbefore the Court below or directly pay the compensation to thecomplainant within seven months from today and produce a Crl.R.P. 916 /09 -3-memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of directpayment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount withinthe aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonmentfor 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.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.mn.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming theconviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on therevision petitioner
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 16 Mar 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.