Jayasree Vs. Suresh

Jayasree vs Suresh

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 11, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/909032

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/909032
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: V.K.Mohanan, J.
Decided On: Nov 11, 2010
Case Number: Crl. R.P.No.3329 of 2010
Subject: BankingCriminal

Case Summary

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

[A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA J.] These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 21.07.2010 passed in OS no. 293/1997 by the learned principal civil judge (Junior division) Kunigal as per Annexure-J and thereby to allow the applications filed by the ...

Key legal issue: BankingCriminal
Acts & sections: Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Crimnal Procedure Code - Sections 357

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayasree

Advocate SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, Adv.

Respondent

Suresh

Legal References

Acts: Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Crimnal Procedure Code - Sections 357

Excerpt

[a.n. venugopala gowda j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the order dated 21.07.2010 passed in os no. 293/1997 by the learned principal civil judge (junior division) kunigal as per annexure-j and thereby to allow the applications filed by the petitioners under order vi rule-17 of the code of civil procedure in o.s no. 293/1997 and o.s no. 455/1998......imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary and also submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant but she require some time to pay the compensation amount.3. having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, i find no reason to deny the above request and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 5.8.2004 that too for an amount of rs.2,25,000/- and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 6 years, though the same belong to the complainant. the apex court in a recent decision reported in damodar s.prabhu v. sayed babalal h. (jt 2010(4) sc 457) has held that, in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. in the light of the above settled legal position and the facts referred above, i am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration, as the petitioner is a lady and some breathing time can be granted to her to pay the compensation amount to be fixed by this court. 4. in the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of negotiable instruments act as recorded by the courts below. accordingly, in suppression of the order to undergo sentence of imprisonment, the sentence is confined to fine only and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of rs.2,94,812/-, which shall be deposited in the trial court within 3 months from today and in default she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount in the trial court on or before 11.2.2011. in case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in paying the fine amount, the trial court is free to take.....

Full Judgment

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R.P.No.3329 of 2010

Dated this the 11thday of November, 2010.

ORDER

1. The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as she is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below.

2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary and also submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant but she require some time to pay the compensation amount.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to deny the above request and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 5.8.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 6 years, though the same belong to the complainant. The apex court in a recent decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) has held that, in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. In the light of the above settled legal position and the facts referred above, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration, as the petitioner is a lady and some breathing time can be granted to her to pay the compensation amount to be fixed by this court.

4. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in suppression of the order to undergo sentence of imprisonment, the sentence is confined to fine only and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,94,812/-, which shall be deposited in the trial court within 3 months from today and in default she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount in the trial court on or before 11.2.2011. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in paying the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against her. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 11.2.2011.

5. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Jayasree vs Suresh Same Subject BankingCriminal Same Judge V.K.Mohanan, J. Acts & Sections Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Crimnal Procedure C...

BankingCriminal