Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Alex Mathew Vs. George John

Alex Mathew vs George John

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 26, 2008
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/725299

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. R.P. No. 2794 of 2004
Subject
Banking;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 20 & 2(b); [J.B. Koshy, A.K. Basheer & K.P. Balachandran, JJ] Civil contempt Limitation under Section 20 Held, Aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. Date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were...

Key legal issue
Banking;Criminal
Acts & sections
Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 357(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Alex Mathew

Advocate Manoj R. Nair, Adv.

Respondent

George John

Advocate Philip M. Varghese, Adv. and; P.K. Ravikrishnan, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 357(3)
Reported In
III(2008)BC406

Excerpt

- contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 20 & 2(b); [j.b. koshy, a.k. basheer & k.p. balachandran, jj] civil contempt limitation under section 20 held, aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were initiated. where the application was filed within one month from the date of contempt and the court delayed posting of case for more than four years for no fault of the petitioner, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies. petition is not barred by limitation. - 4. the lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court regarding service of notice after a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence and being satisfied that ext......'kolidathvilayil veedu' and not 'kolidath veedu' and that the portion 'vilayil' having been left out of the name of his house, unless the prosecution summons the postman and proves the identity of the situs of delivery of the intimation, the mere fact that the accused had left that postal article 'unclaimed' was insufficient to enter a conviction. after assimilating the materials on record, the lower appellate court has rightly concluded that, the discrepancy, as pointed out by the accused, has not, in any manner, affected the prosecution. the appellate court held that there was no difficulty in identifying the addressee as the accused. ext. p4 was treated as ample testimony because the postman has gone to the correct person and had delivered to the right addressee. the lower appellate court repelled such defence which has no place under section 138 of the n.i. act and it is the same address in ext. p4 notice to which the trial court had issued summons to the accused, in answer to which he appeared. the courts below were therefore within the bounds of law in deciding the matter as done. i do not find any grounds to interfere.5. on to the question whether the courts below ought to have issued notice before issuing an order of compensation, it has to be noted that the imposition of compensation is not enhancement of sentence. the dictate of law is that the accused has to be heard regarding any proposal to enhance the sentence already imposed on him. the imposition of compensation is a necessary outflow of the adjudication and decision making process by the court of the first instance or the appellate court, as the case may be. obviously, the award of compensation by the appellate court has had an impact on the reduction of sentence, as has been made by the lower appellate court. the compensation component is not fine and therefore in the absence of any notice before ordering compensation does not vitiate the decision of the lower appellate court. but, a sentence.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The revision petitioner stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court found all the necessary ingredients to enter a conviction on trial, including that Ext. P1 cheque dated 11.12.1995 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- bounced on presentation. Having found that the offence has been proved, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months,

2. As discernible from the judgment under appeal, the only contention urged and pressed at the time of hearing of the appeal was that the issuance of the statutory notice for such prosecution and its proper service has not been proved. That has been repelled by the Appellate Court. The sentence was modified to be one of imprisonment for a period of one month and direction to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

3. Having considered this revision, the two issues that arise for consideration are as to whether the Courts below have acted in accordance with law in convicting the accused in spite of having noticed the discrepancy, as alleged by the accused, as regards his postal address and whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law in imposing an order for compensation while it interfered with the punishment in favour of the accused.

4. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court regarding service of notice after a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence and being satisfied that Ext. P1 cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of debt. The only point that was canvassed before the appellate Court was that, according to the accused, even on the basis of his ration card, the correct name of his house was 'Kolidathvilayil veedu' and not 'Kolidath veedu' and that the portion 'vilayil' having been left out of the name of his house, unless the prosecution summons the postman and proves the identity of the situs of delivery of the intimation, the mere fact that the accused had left that postal article 'unclaimed' was insufficient to enter a conviction. After assimilating the materials on record, the lower appellate Court has rightly concluded that, the discrepancy, as pointed out by the accused, has not, in any manner, affected the prosecution. The appellate Court held that there was no difficulty in identifying the addressee as the accused. Ext. P4 was treated as ample testimony because the postman has gone to the correct person and had delivered to the right addressee. The lower appellate Court repelled such defence which has no place under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and it is the same address in Ext. P4 notice to which the Trial Court had issued summons to the accused, in answer to which he appeared. The Courts below were therefore within the bounds of law in deciding the matter as done. I do not find any grounds to interfere.

5. On to the question whether the Courts below ought to have issued notice before issuing an order of compensation, it has to be noted that the imposition of compensation is not enhancement of sentence. The dictate of law is that the accused has to be heard regarding any proposal to enhance the sentence already imposed on him. The imposition of compensation is a necessary outflow of the adjudication and decision making process by the Court of the first instance or the appellate Court, as the case may be. Obviously, the award of compensation by the appellate Court has had an impact on the reduction of sentence, as has been made by the lower appellate Court. The compensation component is not fine and therefore in the absence of any notice before ordering compensation does not vitiate the decision of the lower appellate Court. But, a sentence in default of payment of compensation could not have been imposed in terms of law.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is partly allowed vacating the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months imposed in default of payment of compensation. Rest stands.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial