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>Conviction upheld for dishonored cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with modified sentence</h1> <h3>BRITTO. K.V Versus BASTIN. K.J, STATE OF KERALA</h3> BRITTO. K.V Versus BASTIN. K.J, STATE OF KERALA - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Adequacy of evidence and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.3. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.4. Modification of sentence.Summary:Legality of Conviction:The accused was prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- which was dishonored due to 'fund insufficient.' The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. This conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II.Adequacy of Evidence and Presumption:The complainant provided evidence through PWs 1 and 2, along with Exts.P1 to P9. The accused did not provide any defense evidence. The courts below relied on the twin presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which favor the complainant. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to establish the accused's liability. The court cited several precedents, including Rangappa v. Sri.Mohan and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, affirming that the presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., which does not allow re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice. The court referred to State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, highlighting that revisional power is supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction.Modification of Sentence:The court found no substantial reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction but modified the sentence to ensure payment of the cheque amount. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-. In default of payment, the accused would undergo imprisonment for eight months. The accused was granted three weeks to pay the fine and surrender before the trial court.Order:The revision petition was allowed in part, modifying the sentence while confirming the conviction. The accused was directed to surrender before the trial court on 12.09.2023, with the execution of the sentence deferred until 11.09.2023. A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the trial court for compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
