IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 1301 of 2001(C)
1. MOOLAT RAVINDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HASSAN SHABBER DAMUDI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.RAJIT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN (RETD.JUDGE)
The Hon'ble SHRI K. Justice J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)
Dated :10/06/2008
O R D E R
JUSTICE T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
-----------------------------------------------
M.F.A. No. 1301 of 2001
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008
AWARD
Counsel for the appellant and counsel for Insurance
Company and Officers of the Insurance Company are present.
After discussion, it is agreed that the appellant will be allowed an
additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand
only) and the same will be deposited before the M.A.C.T.,
Kozhikode within two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this award, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9%
per annum. If the amount is deposited, the same will be
disbursed to the appellant.
The M.F.A. is disposed of as settled between the parties.
JUSTICE T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
jp
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1845 of 2008()
#1. SADIQUE, A.R.HOUSE NO.34, MANICKAVILAKOM
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.NAGAPPAN THAMPI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
! For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
% Dated :10/06/2008
: O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CRL.R.P. No.1845 of 2008
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 10th day of June 2008
O R D E R
In this Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in
S.T.No.3139/2000 on the file of the JFCM II,
Thiruvananthapuram challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision
Petitioner 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 on the drawee bank, that the cheque was validly
presented to the bank, that it was dishonoured for reasons which
CRRP 1845 OF 2008 -:2:-
fall under Section 138 of the Act, that the complainant made a
demand for payment by a notice in time in accordance with
clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and 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 the revision
petitioner while entering the above finding. The said finding has
been recorded on an appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the
finding so recorded concurrently by the courts below. The
conviction was thus rightly entered against the petitioner.
4. What now survives for consideration is the question
as to whether what should be the proper sentence to be imposed
on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the recent
decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty
v. E.P. Abdullakoya (2008(1) KLT 851) rendered on
3-8-2007 in Crl. Appeal 1013 of 2007, default sentence
CRRP 1845 OF 2008 -:3:-
cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for
compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for the
conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs
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 a memo 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 the
revision petitioner.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/