Vinod v. Peter
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision petitioner, convicted under Section 138 NI Act, challenged conviction and sentence. Court confirmed conviction, finding no error of law. Sentence modified to conditional imprisonment contingent on payment of Rs.20,000 compensation within four months.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner to pay Rs.20,000 compensation to respondent within four months; if done, imprisonment till rising of court; if not, three months simple imprisonment.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2007 / 2ND SRAVANA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2375 of 2007()
-----------------------------CRA.349/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA CC.33/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVIKULAM
REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED
- VINOD, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MALAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, VIMALACTTY, KONNATHADY, ADIMALY (VIA).
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
- PETER, S/O.JOSEPH, MANNAPPURATHU HOUSE, MUTHIRAPUZHA, KONNATHADY, ADIMALY.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was correct.
Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner required modification.
Whether an order of modified sentence contingent on payment of compensation is lawful.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Vinod
- respondent
Peter
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court