M.E. Ahammed vs Mohammed Moosadi & Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 10, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1291032

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1291032
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jan 10, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/2714/2009

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.E. Ahammed

Respondent

Mohammed Moosadi & Another

Excerpt

.....instruments act, 1881 (for short “n.i. act”, on the basis of a dishonour of the cheque for rs.3 lakhs. there is concurrent findings by both the courts below regarding conviction. nothing was brought to the notice of this court in order to show any absurdity or perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence or the findings rendered regarding the conviction. hence, it deserves no interference bythis court.4. but the sentence awarded comes to one yearsimple imprisonment and imposed a fine of rs. 3,50,000/- which was confirmed by the first appellate court. it does not reflect a proper balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstance involved in the case. the statutory offence, a deemed offence, created under section 138 of the n.i.act is intended to give more rigour and rigidity to commercial transactions. the present case will not fall under the mischief sought to be suppressed under the act. as such, the substantive sentence will stand reduced till the rising of the court. the accused, in the meanwhile, passed away. hence substantive sentence stood abated. the fine amount (compensation) ordered comes to rs.3,50,000/-, though the cheque amount comes to rs.3 lakhs alone. hence, the same will stand modified to rs. 3 lakhs by way ofcompensation under section 357(3) cr.p.c. payable to the complainant on its recovery. it shall be recovered from the assets left out by the deceased. the criminal revision will stand allowed in part accordingly. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT 17.07.2009 IN CRA 265/2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KASARAGOD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2007 IN CC 769/2006 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: M.E. AHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM,RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPU, MOOSODI, P.O.UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 MOHAMMED MOOSADI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE MANNUNHI, 'AYSHA MANZIL', MOOSODI PADY P.O., UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYASHREE PRIYA EASWARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

It is so unfortunate that the counsel for the revision petitioner remained absent and there was no representation. As such, this court was forced to take the assistance of Adv. Nidheesh T.P. appointed as the Amicus Curiae.

2. Heard the Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor.

3. It is a prosecution under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”, on the basis of a dishonour of the cheque for Rs.3 lakhs. There is concurrent findings by both the courts below regarding conviction. Nothing was brought to the notice of this court in order to show any absurdity or perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence or the findings rendered regarding the conviction. Hence, it deserves no interference by

this court.

4. But the sentence awarded comes to one year

simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- which was confirmed by the first appellate court. It does not reflect a proper balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstance involved in the case. The statutory offence, a deemed offence, created under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is intended to give more rigour and rigidity to commercial transactions. The present case will not fall under the mischief sought to be suppressed under the Act. As such, the substantive sentence will stand reduced till the rising of the court. The accused, in the meanwhile, passed away. Hence substantive sentence stood abated. The fine amount (compensation) ordered comes to Rs.3,50,000/-, though the cheque amount comes to Rs.3 lakhs alone. Hence, the same will stand modified to Rs. 3 lakhs by way of

compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. payable to the complainant on its recovery. It shall be recovered from the assets left out by the deceased. The Criminal Revision will stand allowed in part accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties M.E. Ahammed vs Mohammed Moosadi & Another Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan