Dismissed

Y.Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2012Crl.MC/354/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Petitioner challenged a direction by the appellate court to deposit Rs. 50,000 as a condition for suspending his sentence under Section 138 NI Act. The single judge rejected the challenge, holding the direction appropriate and dismiss the petition, while granting six weeks' time for deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner 's petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; six weeks' time granted to deposit the amount.

Y.Raju Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/27TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 354 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRMP.NO.20/2012 IN CRA.585/2011 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA IN CC.625/2009 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

Y.RAJU S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, PARAVILA VEEDU THURUTHIYIL AMBALAM, KULAKKAD VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

K.R.AJAYAKUMARA KURUP

¶15

S/O.M.P.KRISHNAPILLA

¶16

M.P.KRISHNAPILLA VIHAR (KALEECKAL VADAKKETHIL)

¶17

KOIPPALLIKARANMA MURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE

¶18

OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690101.

¶19

R2 BY SRI.K.S.SIVA KUMAR

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.354 of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2012

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, assails Annexure-B order in Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.585 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara.

¶27

The facts leading to the petition is that the first respondent prosecuted the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam in C.C.No.625 of 2009 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and convicted thereunder. Assailing the conviction and sentence, appeal was preferred. The above mentioned petition was filed before the appellate court seeking an order to suspend the sentence. While suspending the sentence, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is aggrieved of that direction to deposit the amount. It is submitted that the cheque amount is Rs.3,00,000/-. In the above circumstance, the amount ordered to be deposited by the appellate court as a condition for

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.354 of 2012 2

¶29

suspending the sentence in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction appears to be quite appropriate, and there is nothing to interfere with in exercise of the powers vested in this court under Section 482

¶30

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

In the result, this petition is dismissed; however, granting six weeks' time to the petitioner to deposit the amount before the trial court.

¶32

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶33

cms

Y.Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajalal C Vs State of Kerala

Santhappan Vs State of Kerala

N.Sivaprakash Vs Reej Prakash

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

P.Manikantan Vs State of Kerala

Barry George Vs State of Kerala