The revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act for cheque dishonour was dismissed. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and reasonable sentence awarded by lower courts.
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. 612 of 2014 ()
CRL.APPEAL 548/2010 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST 1926/2006 of J.M.F.C.-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONERS:APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
SIVAM, NO.1, TRANS INDIA ENCLAVE TKD ROAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER/DIRECTOR MR. B.SATHEESH NAIR (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SATHISH KUMAR).
MANAGING PARTNER/DIRECTOR, TRANS INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS SIVAM, NO.1, TRANS INDIA ENCLAVE T.K.D.ROAD, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT MANOVETH VEEDU HOUSE NO. 30/1, PANICKER'S LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI THOMAS J AMBOOKKEN
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.612 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of March 2014
ORDER
This Criminal revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No.1926 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 total amount of 3 cheques was 41,250/-. The trial court convicted both 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 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and directed to pay a compensation of `50,000/- and
:2:
Crl.R.P. No.612 of 2014
in default of payment, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Against that conviction and sentence both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.548 of
2010 before the Additional Sessions Court -II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was allowed in part. The conviction of the accused was confirmed and the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months was set aside. The sentence directing payment of compensation and the default sentence was confirmed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.
Crl.R.P. No.612 of 2014
:3:
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.
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.1926 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 //
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the courts below can be interfered with in a criminal revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. TRANS INDIA CONSTRUCTION / B.SATHEESH NAIR
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
