TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court modifies sentence to compensation; upholds conviction under Section 138 of NI Act</h1> <h3>P. Ramadas Versus State of Kerala And Another</h3> The Supreme Court modified the appellant's sentence from three months of simple imprisonment to an additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which ... Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - sentence awarded to appellant - Held that: - it is not possible to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant. Thus, no interference is warranted against the order of conviction. Interest of justice would be subserved if the order regarding simple imprisonment of three months is modified and in lieu thereof, additional compensation amount of ₹ 1,00,000/-, already deposited by the appellant before the Trial Court, is directed to be made over to respondent No.2 - In other words, respondent No.2 is free to withdraw the additional compensation amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- already deposited by the appellant before the Trial Court. This amount be paid to respondent No.2 subject to verification of his identity. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Compliance with compensation order - Modification of sentence from imprisonment to additional compensation.Analysis:The appeal in question arose from an order passed by the High Court of Kerala confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant was initially convicted by the Judicial First Class MagistrateII and sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment along with a compensation amount. Despite subsequent appeals to the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court, the conviction and sentence were upheld. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court via a special leave petition challenging the order of the High Court.Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had already deposited the initial compensation amount and an additional sum as directed by the Court. The Court decided that while the conviction could not be interfered with, the focus should be on the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the appellant's compliance with the Court's directions, the Supreme Court modified the sentence from three months of simple imprisonment to an additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which had already been deposited by the appellant before the Trial Court.The Supreme Court acknowledged that the complainant had not appeared before the Court but deemed the modified order to be in the complainant's favor. The Court allowed the appellant to pay the additional compensation amount to the complainant, subject to verification of identity. It was clarified that if the complainant was dissatisfied with the order, they could apply for its recall. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, and the order of sentence was modified to replace the imprisonment term with the payment of additional compensation to the complainant as already deposited by the appellant before the Trial Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
