High Court Kerala High Court

T.K..Sukumaran vs P.K.Kuttappan on 21 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
T.K..Sukumaran vs P.K.Kuttappan on 21 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 232 of 2000()



1. T.K..SUKUMARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. P.K.KUTTAPPAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

                For Respondent  :SRI.SARVOTHAMANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :21/11/2007

 O R D E R
                        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.

3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the

testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5.

4. 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.

5. 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
csl

CRRP232/2000    3




                     K.R.UDAYABHANU, J




                     Crl.R.P.No.613/1999

                           ORDER




                           19/11/2007

CRRP232/2000    4