This order dismisses the criminal revision petition. The court upheld the conviction for cheque dishonour, holding that the prosecution testimony supported execution and the accused failed to rebut statutory presumptions.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2007 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1928
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 66 of 1998()
---------------------------CRA.29/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR CC.528/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR
REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED
N.V.NARAYANAN NANGELI VEEDU PERUMBAVOOR
BY ADV. SRI. T. RAVIKUMAR SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE
VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.No.66/1998
ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.401/1998 IN CRL.R.P.NO.66/1998
DISMISSED
21.3.2007
Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
CRL.R.P.No.66 of 1998
--------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2007
ORDER
Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
that the revision petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his version that the signed blank cheque was stolen by the complainant. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7. The revision petitioner has relied on the decision in Bindu vs. Sreekandan Nair (2007(1) KLT 525) in support of his contention that when he denied the writings in the cheque except the signature, the same is not sufficient to establish the execution.
Page numbers
CRRP66/98
who wrote down the details in the cheque that the accused has brought a cheque pre-written into his office and signed in his presence. He has not been cross examined with respect to the version of the accused that the signed blank cheque was stolen. I find that the facts of the case has no similarity with the facts situation in the cited decision. On a perusal of the evidence of PW1, I find that nothing has been brought out in the cross examination to suspect his version. No contradiction or inconsistency has been brought out. The revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence or brought out any circumstances in the cross examination of PW1 to rebut the statutory presumptions. In the circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere in the findings of the court below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the conviction where the statutory presumption of execution of a cheque was not rebutted.
Whether a denial of the details written on a cheque except the signature is sufficient to establish lack of execution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bindu vs. Sreekandan NairDistinguished¶32
Bindu vs. Sreekandan Nair (2007(1) KLT 525)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.V.NARAYANAN NANGELI VEEDU PERUMBAVOOR
SANTHI SLAVOS
STATE OF KERALA
K.R.UDAYABHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
