Partly allowed

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1446/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that the concurrent finding of conviction did not suffer from any illegality. However, considering the facts and the cheque amount, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine, payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 95,000/-, payable as compensation. Order to surrender.

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1446 of 2009

¶6

Crl.A 483/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),NORTH PARAVUR ST 1535/2005 of J.M.F.C. - II, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SIVADASAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 59,

¶9

PADANNAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAM, PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

NOUSHAD, S/O. YOUSUF, AGED 27, NISHA MAZIL, ELOOR NORHTH, ELOOR.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.1446 of 2009

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted under Section

¶22

138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act (for short 'the N.I.

¶23

Act') concurrently by the courts below.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

No material has been brought to the notice of this

¶26

court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the

¶27

concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or

¶28

incorrect. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am

¶29

satisfied that the concurrent finding of conviction by the

¶30

Crl.R.P.1446/2009

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

courts below does not suffer from any illegality,

¶33

impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference by this Court.

¶34

Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.95,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. In the event of realisation of the fine amount, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) (b)

Cr.P.C.

Crl.R.P.1446/2009

: 3 :

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶39

part as above.

¶40

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial

¶41

court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

dl/.28.10..2016

¶45

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivadasan 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

Raghavendra Prasad Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sreekumar Vs the State of Kerala

E.Sudhakaran Vs P.Gopalakrishnan & Another

Khadeeja Banu Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shamsudeen Vs State of Kerala

Tom Mathew Vs Bank of India