Partly allowed

Renjithlal v. M/S.Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1450/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The court found no perversity in the conviction under Section 138 NI Act but modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine, directing compensation to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 70,000/-. Relief granted as compensation to the complainant.

Renjithlal Vs M/S.Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1450 of 2010 ( )

¶6

Crl.A 183/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, THODUPUZHA ST 16/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

RENJITHLAL,S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 47, PUTINAKUDY HOUSE,THRIKARIYOOR.P.O,, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

M/S MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD,

¶12

THODUPUZHA BRANCH,REP;BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M SHIBU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 39 YEARS.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.1450 of 2010

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶22

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act (for short 'the N.I. Act') concurrently by the courts below.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

No material has been brought to the notice of this

¶25

court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the concurrent finding of conviction by the

¶26

Crl.R.P.1450/2010

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

courts below does not suffer from any illegality,

¶29

impropriety or incorrectness, warranting interference by this Court.

¶30

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.70,000/- (Rupees seventy 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.

¶31

Crl.R.P.1450/2010

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶34

part as above.

¶35

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial

¶36

court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE

dl/.28.10..2016

// True Copy //

PA to Judge

Renjithlal v. M/S.Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjithlal v. M/S.Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

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

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Tom Mathew Vs Bank of India

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Thomas .C.Arackal Vs K.Joseph & Ors.

Kunjaisha Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudeen Vs the State of Kerala