Dismissed

S.Gopakumar v. Ashok Kumar.v.

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, declining to alter the reasonable sentence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed as it was without merits. Six months time was granted to the accused to pay compensation and surrender.

S.Gopakumar Vs Ashok Kumar.v. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 588 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.481/2012 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

ST 1426/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶8

S.GOPAKUMAR

¶9

S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHEENIVILA VEEDU, KALLADICHAVILA

¶10

THUNDATHIL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH

¶12

SRI.S.D.ASOKAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶14

ASHOK KUMAR.V.

¶15

S/O.VISWAMBHARAN NAIR, MOTHER KRISHNA HOUSE KARIAVATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶20

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.588 of 2014

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated 17^th March, 2014

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Criminal revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.1426 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 70,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to pay fine of 84,445/-. If the fine amount is not paid, the accused was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months. On realisation of the fine amount, it was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.481 of 2012 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which was allowed in part, confirming the conviction passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the NI Act. The sentence was modified and reduced to fine of `75,000/- and in default, to

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2014

¶28

¶29

undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶32

raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below rejected the contentions by giving cogent reasons. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below and confirm the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since the appellate court awarded only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.

¶33

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. Six months time is granted to the accused in S.T. No.1426 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Thiruvananthapuram to pay the compensation and to surrender before the trial court to

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2014

¶35

¶36

undergo imprisonment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶39

tgs

¶40

(true copy)

S.Gopakumar v. Ashok Kumar.v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gopakumar v. Ashok Kumar.v.

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

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Raghunathan Vs K.Pratheesh

P.N. Prakash Vs K.M. Rajendra & Another