HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
JOLLY ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
VADAKKUMCORE CHITS(P) LTD – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 656 2023
Cheque - Negotiable Instruments - Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 - Court upheld conviction for cheque dishonor due to insufficient funds and affirmed trial court's findings.
Fact of the Case:
The accused failed to remit installments after a chitty auction, issued a cheque which bounced due to insufficient funds, and did not pay despite a statutory notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence and legal application was correct, leaving no room for interference.
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for cheque dishonor were justified and if the fine payment period could be extended.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper evidence appreciation and correct law application by the trial court led to upholding the conviction.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed with an extension of eight months for fine payment.
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2023 The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No. 12 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vaikom. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .
2. The 1st respondent alleged that, after auctioning the chitty amount, the petitioner failed to remit the installments and on demand, issued a cheque towards discharge of that liability. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for insufÏciency of funds and despite issuance of statutory notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment.
3. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal contentions, found the petitioner guilty and thereupon, convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.2,07,260/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, on realisation, was directed to be paid as compensation to the 1st respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging her conviction and sentence, was dismissed, afÏrming the findings of the trial court.
Aggrieved, this revision petition is filed.
4. Although learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced elaborate arguments in an attempt to point out the illegalities in the trial and appellate court judgments, having carefully gone through the judgments, it is seen that the evidence was properly appreciated and the law correctly applied. As such, there is no scope for interference.
5. At this point, learned Counsel made an alternate plea that, in the event of this Court not being convinced about the grounds of challenge, the time limit for paying the fine amount may be extended.
I find the said request to be reasonable, considering that the 1st respondent is a financing company.
6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted eight months time to pay/remit the fine amount, failing which she shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall remit/pay the fine amount and appear before the trial court for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, within the extended period.
In view of the extension granted, coercive steps, if any pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for eight months.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.