Dismissed

M.K.Pushpangadan v. Suresh

Kerala HC29 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1078/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment confirms the conviction and sentence of a petitioner accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court directed the accused to appear after paying compensation, keeping sentence execution in abeyance till payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment execution stayed until compensation paid; fine amount to be deposited to 1st respondent.

M.K.Pushpangadan Vs Suresh — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1078 of 2012 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRA.224/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,ADHOC COURT-I+, PALAKKAD ST.1755/2008 of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

M.K.PUSHPANGADAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.KARAPPAN, MENOTHPARAMBU HOUSE, KANDASSANKADAVU KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶10

SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1. SURESH

¶13

S/O.SEKHARAN, RESIDING AT CHEMMANAMTHODE

¶14

MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK

¶15

MUTHALAMADA.P.O. 678 507.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

acd

¶23

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶24

Crl.R.P. No.1078 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1755/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chittur. The prosecution was one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine amount was directed to be paid to the 1^st respondent under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc Court-I, Palakkad confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. Those judgments are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner only wants time to pay the fine amount.

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1078/12 2

¶29

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose

¶31

of this Criminal Revision Petition as follows:

¶32

The conviction is confirmed. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate for undergoing the imprisonment on 04.03.2013, after paying the compensation amount. Till then, the Magistrate shall keep the execution of the sentence in abeyance. Needless to say, any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be given credit for.

¶33

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶34

acd

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1078/12 3

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.1078/12 4

M.K.Pushpangadan v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Pushpangadan v. Suresh

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

Babeesh Vs the Managing Director, Sidco

V.a.Sobhanakumari Vs Smt.Roopakala Jagath

T.Kallyani Vs Excise Inspector,Hosdurg Excise Range

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Badharuddeen Vs P.J. Joseph