Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.C.RAJAN versus MUKKANAN MOHAMMED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.C.RAJAN v. MUKKANAN MOHAMMED - Crl Rev Pet No. 516 of 2000 [2007] RD-KL 14406 (30 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 516 of 2000()

1. C.C.RAJAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MUKKANAN MOHAMMED
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

For Respondent :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

Dated :30/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY, J.

Crl.R.P.No.516 OF 2000 Dated 30th July, 2007

ORDER

On the allegation that the cheque issued by the petitioner for Rs.20,000/= was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, first respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. The defence of the accused was that he has not issued the cheque even though it was from his account maintaining for `Kavitha Printers'. It is also submitted that his brother Phalgunan might have issued the cheque to the proprietor of Shalimar Paper Mart and that was misused by the complainant. Therefore, a definite defence was taken by the revision petitioner before the court. But, the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence. He did not even examine his brother or disputing the signature file petition to send the cheque for opinion of handwriting expert. In the above circumstances, after considering the evidence of complainant, the court found that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. It is also noticed by the trial court that reply notice was not produced. In the appeal proceedings notice was produced, but, that was not accepted by the court. I am of the opinion that even though Crl.R.P.516/2000 2 reply was produced, since the contentions were not proved, there is no purpose in remanding the matter as he had ample opportunity to examine Phalgunan and also opportunity to prove that the signature in the cheque was forged. But, no effort was made by him. Whereas, complainant has asserted that the petitioner has executed the cheque in presence of his household. In the above circumstances, concurrent conviction made by the courts below cannot be interfered. With regard to the sentence, six months imprisonment was imposed by the trial court. In appeal, sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months. First respondent is interested in getting back his money than sending the revision petitioner in prison. Taking all these facts and circumstances, I reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment for three days and a compensation of Rs.25,000/=. If the compensation amount is realised, Rs.20,000/= shall be given to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, petitioner has to suffer imprisonment for two months. Since now Section 138 matter is compoundable, I give two months time to settle the matter. If the matter is compounded and settled between the parties, they can approach this court for recording the settlement. Otherwise, the modified sentence shall be executed by the trial court. This order is certified to Crl.R.P.516/2000 3 the trial court for implementation after two months. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY Judge tks


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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