P.K.Mony. Vs. Biju Mathew.

P.K.Mony. vs Biju Mathew.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 25, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911286

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/911286
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: M. L. Joseph Francis, J.
Decided On: Nov 25, 2010
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1209 of 2001
Subject: BankingCriminal

Case Summary

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

[P. SATHASIVAM ; Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.J.] The Seeds Act, 1966 ; Court Act, 1971 - Sections 19,15, 15(1)(a)(b) ; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 391; High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 - Rule 7 -- Being well known to the officials of the company, he was engaged as Retainer ...

Key legal issue: BankingCriminal
Acts & sections: Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.) - Section 357(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.K.Mony.

Advocate SRI.R.BINDU, Adv.

Respondent

Biju Mathew.

Legal References

Acts: Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.) - Section 357(1)
Cases Referred: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal

Excerpt

.....in various courts in karnataka.the appellant advised the company officials to file criminal petitions in the high court of karnataka for quashing of the said criminal proceedings alleged to be pending in the courts at hubli, mysore, chitradurga, bellary, sandur, raichur etc., and the appellant asked the company in writing to pay a sum of rs.10,000/- towards the court fee in each case for filing of criminal petitions before the high court in addition to other miscellaneous expenses like his professional fee, typing etc. the company having full faith in the appellant remitted the said amount of court fee of rs.10,000/- in each case for purchasing the court fees from the vendor, namely, smt. s. gauri, who was none other than the mother-in-law of the appellant. on coming to know about these facts, the high court itself suo motu initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant. after completing the trial, the high court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. the appellant's conviction would adversely affect the case of the appellant in the said criminal case. the issue has not been agitated before the high court, rather the complaint filed by the registrar general of the high court makes it clear that the complaint itself has been filed on behalf of the high court by the advocate general. all the documents placed before the high court have been appreciated and considered......the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. the said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. i do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. 5. in the decision reported in damodar s. prabhu v. sayed babalal h (2010(2) khc 428 (sc)), it was held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of rs.40,000/- would meet the ends of justice. the said fine shall be paid as compensation under section 357(1) of cr.p.c. the revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within three months from today and to produce a memo to that effect before the trial court in case of direct payment. if he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. the amount if any deposited in the trial court by the accused can be given credit to. 6. in the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

Full Judgment

1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 569 of 1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Muvattupuzha challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.40,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In the appeal the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. If the fine amount is realised a sum of Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the court below.

4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the Revision petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed.

5. In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within three months from today and to produce a memo to that effect before the Trial Court in case of direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The amount if any deposited in the trial court by the accused can be given credit to.

6. In the result, this Revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered by modifying the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties P.K.Mony. vs Biju Mathew. Same Subject BankingCriminal Same Judge M. L. Joseph Francis, J. Acts & Sections Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Code of Criminal Pr...

BankingCriminal