Criminal revision filed against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act regarding dishonoured cheque. Court found concurrent findings of courts below were correct and no interference warranted.
Revision petition dismissed; revision petitioner granted four months to pay the fine.
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 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2 of 2010 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 391/2008 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 28-08-2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 103/2007 of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETTIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.M.KANTHASWAMI, RESIDING AT N.G.O.QUARTERS, MARUTHAROD AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, WORKING AS, AMIN IN FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.ANILKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 2010
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016
ORDER
The accused in S.T. No. 103 of 2007 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittur, has filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Heard both sides.
-: 2 :-
Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 2010
on behalf of the revision petitioner which was received by the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount.
-: 3 :-
Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 2010
committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, this Revision petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted four months to pay the fine.
Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
ani/ 29-09-2016
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act warrants interference in criminal revision.
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court warrants interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sethumadhavan
N. Krishnan
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
