High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with modifications: sentence reduce...
M.V. George v. Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. and State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1176 of 2012
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Harilal
- Judgment Date
- 2013-06-20
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of with modifications: (i) the sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment till rising of the court for one day; (ii) the petitioner shall pay Rs.1,30,000 as compensation to the complainant within six months; (iii) the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court to suffer the remaining sentence and to show proof of payment by 21 December 2013; (iv) any amount deposited earlier shall be credited; (v) in default, an additional simple imprisonment of one month; (vi) any pending warrants shall be kept in abeyance until 21 December 2013.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with modifications: sentence reduced; compensation directed with six-month timeline; appearance by date; credit for deposits; default provisions; orders to be carried out as stated.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M.V. George
Respondents
- Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company (P) Ltd., represented by Sasidharan
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. P.K. Sajeev
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Raj Mohan R. Pillai
- • Public Prosecutor Seena Ramakrishnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Revision Petition by M.V. George, reviews concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the sentence consequent upon cheque dishonour. The petitioner challenges the judgment in Crl.A. No. 373/2010 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc‑I), Thrissur, which affirmed conviction recorded in ST No. 2799/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court‑III, Thrissur. The trial court held that the complainant successfully established the execution and issuance of the cheque, and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act; accordingly, conviction and a sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment with a compensation of Rs.1,30,000, and in default, a further one month imprisonment, were imposed. The revision petition contends that the court should not re‑appreciate evidence absent perversity and argues for leniency in sentence. The respondents support the conviction and seek no aggressive modification. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court decisions Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore and Vijayan v. Baby, emphasizes that the compensatory remedy should be prioritized and restitution must be practical. Taking a sympathetic view to the debtor, the court grants six months to pay the Rs.1,30,000 compensation and reduces the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment till rising of the court, with detailed steps for payment and appearance by 21 December 2013. The petition is disposed of accordingly with provisions for credit of any deposits and default consequences.
Provisions of Law Cited
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 138Section 118(a)Section 139
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is almost in the nature of a civil wrong with criminal overtones.
- Compensation/restoration should be practical and prioritized over punitive aspects in NI Act prosecutions.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner urged that revisional jurisdiction does not permit re‑appreciation of evidence absent perversity and sought leniency in sentence, including a practical timeframe to pay the due compensation.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents urged maintaining the conviction and submitted that a reasonable period to pay compensation could be provided; no insistence on harsher punishment as the facts show a debt discharged by cheque; focus on restitution.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore | AIR 2011 SC 2566 | Positive | The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 138 NI Act resembles a civil wrong with a criminal overtone and that compensation can meet ends of justice; the High Court relies on this to prioritize restitution. |
| Vijayan v. Baby | 2011(4) KLT 355 | Positive | The decision supports practical restitution and realistic payment directions in NI Act prosecutions, reinforcing the court’s discretionary approach to compensation. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.V. George v. Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL**
## **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/30TH JYAISHTA 1935**
## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1176 of 2012 ()**
**-------------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO. 373/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, THRISSUR DATED 28-03-2012)**
**ST.NO. 2799/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III,THRISSUR**
**----------------------------------------------------------**
## **PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:**
**---------------------------------------------------------**
**M.V.GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE M.L., MATTATHIL HOUSE, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV**
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :**
**----------------------------------------------------------------**
**1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY SASIDHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, VALLIYATTU HOUSE, KODANNUR, P.O. KODANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 574.**
**2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**sts**
**K. HARILAL, J. -----------------------------------------------------Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of June, 2013**
## **ORDER**
This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No.373/2010 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thrissur. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T.No.2799/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant/1[st] respondent and in default, to undergo
**Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
2
simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The grounds raised before me are also urging for re-appreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1[st] respondent had successfully discharged initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the Revision Petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1[st] respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1[st] respondent was a legally enforceable debt and Ext.P1 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt. The Revision Petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. I do not
**Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
3
find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived at. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-appreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.
3. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that challenge under this Revision is confined to sentence only. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner is disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. He further submits that the Revision Petitioner is willing to pay the compensation as ordered by the court below; but he is unable to raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds. But he is ready to pay the compensation within six months. The counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that a reasonable time can be given to the Revision petitioner to pay the compensation.
4. Similarly, the substantive sentence imposed on the
**Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
4
revision petitioner is too harsh and excessive. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment also. If the revision petitioner is incarcerated for a period as ordered by the courts below, the entire family will put put in great hardship.
5. The Supreme Court, in the decision in **Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore** (AIR 2011 SC 2566) **,** held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Further, in **Vijayan vs. Baby (** 2011(4) KLT 355), Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
6. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the
**Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
5
offence, in the light of the decisions quoted above and submission made at the Bar, expressing willingness to pay the compensation within six months, I am inclined to grant six months time to pay the compensation. Similarly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced and modified to simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Consequently, this Revision Petition is liable to be disposed of subject to the following terms.
i. The Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court.
ii. The Revision Petitioner shall pay Rs.1,30,000/(Rupees One Lakh Thirty thousand only) to the 1st respondent/complainant as compensation within a period of six months from today.
iii. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court to suffer substantive sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered above on or before 21[st] December,2013 with sufficient proof to show payment of compensation .
6
## **Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
iv. If any amount had been deposited before the trial court, the same shall be credited to the amount directed to be paid as compensation.
v. In default, the Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
vi. Warrant, if any, is pending in execution of the sentence ordered under the impugned judgment, the same shall be kept in abeyance till 21[st] December,2013.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)**
stu
//True copy//
P.A to Judge.
## **Crl.R.P. No. 1176 of 2012**
7