Revision petition by accused challenging conviction and sentence under cheque dishonour case (Section 138 NI Act). High Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings, confirmed conviction and dismissed the petition.
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 M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 611 of 2014 ()
CRL.APPEAL 549/2010 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST 993/2006 of J.M.F.C.-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONERS:APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHTI THOMAS J AMBOOKEN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.611 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of March 2014
ORDER
This Criminal revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.993 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 13,750/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and the first accused was sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000/- and second accused was directed to pay a compensation of `15,500/-, in default of payment, the second accused was sentenced to undergo simple
Crl.R.P. No.611 of 2014
:2:
imprisonment for one month. Against that conviction and sentence the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.549 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court -II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was disposed of confirming conviction and sentece to pay fine and compensation. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.
revision petitioner raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and 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 courts below awarded only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Crl.R.P. No.611 of 2014
:3:
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.993 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram to pay the
compensation and fine.
Sd/-
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)
dl/
// TRUE COPY //
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent convictions and sentences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed by the trial and appellate courts.
Whether the sentence awarded by the lower courts is reasonable and requires interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. TRANS INDIA CONSTRUCTION SIVAM
SUSEELA MATHEW
STATE OF KERALA
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
