V.RAMKUMAR v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Mar 2010
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
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 the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and Crl.R..P. No.…
- Para 55. What now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of…
Judgment
V.RAMKUMAR, J.======================Crl.R.P. No. 658 of 2010======================Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010.
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 S.T.No.219 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The cheque amount was Rs.1,50,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,55,000/-.
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.
The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and Crl.R..P. No. 658/2010-:2:-that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by there vision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. This Court sitting in the rarefiedrevisional jurisdiction will be loath to interfere with the findings offact recorded by the courts below concurrently. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.
Operative part
What now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EttappadanAhammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order 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 there vision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,58,000/- Crl.R..P. No. 658/2010-:3:-(Rupees one lakh and fifty eight thousand only). The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C.The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six months from today and produce amemo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed on there vision petitioner. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv
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 03 Mar 2010. 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.