Dismissed

Abdulla Kurikkal v. Mampallil Abdurahim

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Finding no perversity in lower courts' conclusions, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence but granted six months to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; six months time granted to revise petitioner to pay compensation.

Abdulla Kurikkal Vs Mampallil Abdurahim — 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 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3103 of 2011 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 284/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 368/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, PERINTHALMANNA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶9

ABDULLA KURIKKAL

¶10

S/O.MANCHERIVEETTIL KUNHIMUHAMMED KURIKAL, VALLUVMGAD AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK,

¶11

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

MAMPALLIL ABDURAHIM S/O.MAMPALLI MUHAMMED, KODASSERI,

¶15

CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶19

FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN & ADV. SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 3103 of 2011

¶23

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The accused in S.T. No. 368 of 2009 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perinthalmanna, 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.

¶26

Heard. Perused copy of the deposition furnished by the first respondent.

¶27

The prosecution case is that the revision Petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

Crl.R.P. No. 3103 of 2011

¶30

of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued on behalf of the revision petitioner which was received by the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount.

¶31

Before the trial Court, the complainant got himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision Petitioner.

¶32

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, repelling the defence set up by the revision petitioner. No circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the concurrent finding by the Courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

Crl.R.P. No. 3103 of 2011

¶35

finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶36

The sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶37

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

¶38

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

ani/ 29-09-2016

Abdulla Kurikkal v. Mampallil Abdurahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla Kurikkal v. Mampallil Abdurahim

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

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Excise Inspector

M. Sam Vs K. Robinson

Mukundan @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Saidali

Valsan Vs the State of Kerala