High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition partly, holding that the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act was not perverse. The sentence was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.53,675/-.
Impression reduced to jail till rising of court and fine of Rs.53,675/-; surrender ordered on 14.12.2016.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1528 of 2009 ( )
CRL.A 275/2008 of SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM ST 1963/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II(MOBILE),KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER:
TOM MATHEW,
ADAM NIVAS, MOOLAVATTOM P.O.,, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
RESPONDENTS:
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER,
BANK OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.1528 of 2009
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act (for short
'the N.I. Act') concurrently by the courts below.
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 courts below does not suffer from any illegality,
Crl.R.P.1528/2009
: 2 :
impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference by this Court.
Crl.R.P.1528/2009
: 3 :
Cr.P.C.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in
part as above.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial
court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
dl/28.10.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act warrants interference by this Court.
Whether the sentence awarded by the lower courts can be modified and reduced in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
TOM MATHEW
BANK OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM
THE STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
