Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


P. SETHULEKSHMI v. E.M. SHAJAHAN - Crl Rev Pet No. 2517 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 340 (21 July 2006)


Crl Rev Pet No. 2517 of 2006()

... Petitioner


... Respondent


For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/07/2006



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2517 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 21st day of July, 2006


This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/- Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. The petitioner/accused did not adduce any evidence before the trial court. In the course of the trial the accused took up a contention that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as a blank signed cheque as security when a transaction for Rs.5,000/- was entered into.

3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that Crl.R.P.No. 2517 of 2006 2 all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been established and that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing the defence urged by him. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner only reiterates the contentions that were raised before the courts below. I find absolutely no merits in the contentions raised. PW1's evidence about the circumstances under which he received Ext.P1 cheque from the petitioner/accused is found to be absolutely justified. No satisfactory explanation is offered as to how the cheque with the signature of the petitioner thereon reached PW1. The apology of a contention which is not attempted to be substantiated at all that the cheque was handed over as a signed blank cheque as security has not been proved at all. The burden under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does also stare at the petitioner. In these circumstances the challenge raised on merits must necessarily fall to the ground.

5. The counsel then prays that leniency may be shown. The Crl.R.P.No. 2517 of 2006 3 petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is also a direction to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. Leniency and indulgence have already been shown to the petitioner. There is no room for any further indulgence or leniency at the hands of the revisional court.

6. The learned counsel submits that though the trial court had directed payment of only an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation it has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- by the appellate court. That indulgence was shown by the appellate court to spare the petitioner of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. I have been taken through the judgment of the trial court. The trial court has not indicated any reason as to why an amount of Rs.15,000/- alone is directed to be paid when the actual cheque amount is itself Rs.50,000/- That direction by the trial court, in these circumstances, cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel finally prays that the petitioner may be granted some further time to appear before the learned Magistrate to serve the sentence. I am not satisfied that any further leniency needs or Crl.R.P.No. 2517 of 2006 4 deserves to be shown. However it can be directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 16.9.2006 to serve the impugned sentence. Till then the sentence shall not be executed. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter take necessary steps to execute the impugned sentence.

8. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent.

9. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above observations/directions. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.