Dismissed

E.Sudhakaran v. P.Gopalakrishnan & Another

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/2001/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala heard a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench found no perversity in the courts' appreciation of evidence or concurrent finding of conviction, dismissing the revision. It allowed six months for compensation payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; six months granted to pay compensation.

E.Sudhakaran Vs P.Gopalakrishnan & Another — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2001 of 2010 ( )

¶6

Crl.A 1071/2008 of ADDL. D.C. KOZHIKODE- II ST 1384/2007 of SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

E.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR,

¶9

AGED 60 YEARS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, PUNJAB NATIONAL, BANK, K.P.KESAVA MENON ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-, 673 001.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

P.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.V.M.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶13

MENON, AGED 67 YEARS, PERUMBILAVIL,"KRISHNA",, NEAR WEST OF THALIKUNNU TEMPLE,MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE, 673 007.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.PREETHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, C K PRASAD

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.2001 of 2010

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 26^th day of October 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶23

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act (for

¶24

short 'the N.I. Act') concurrently by the courts below.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

No material has been brought to the notice of this

¶27

court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent

¶28

finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding

¶29

by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed

¶30

the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not

¶31

Crl.R.P..2001/2010

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

warrant any interference by this court.

¶34

The sentence awarded by the courts below also

¶35

does not call for any interference by this court.

¶36

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the compensation.

¶37

If the revision petitioner had deposited any amount before the trial court as directed by this court as per order dated 7.7.2010 in Crl.M.A. No.6364/2010, the said amount

¶38

will be treated as part payment of the compensation

¶39

directed in this order.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

dl/.27.10..2016

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

PA to Judge

E.Sudhakaran v. P.Gopalakrishnan & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Sudhakaran v. P.Gopalakrishnan & Another

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

Kajamoideen Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Jose Joseph Vs Food Inspector

Sanil Kumar Vs Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

K.Gopakumar Vs State

Raghavendra Prasad Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police