Allowed

Sharafudeen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3444/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The single judge found no illegality in the conviction but modified the original sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court, a fine of Rs. 6,75,000, and granted ten months to pay the fine payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified; imprisonment till rising of the court, fine of Rs. 6,75,000 within ten months, payable to complainant as compensation.

Sharafudeen Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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. 3444 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 841/2007 of II ADDL.S.C.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC 266/2005 of J.M.F.C.-V, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHARAFUDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED JAML, KASSALA VEEDU, VETTIVILAKOM, PARANIYAM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

JAYAKUMAR, S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, PAYATTUVILA, MEKKARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.RAMESH CHAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶14

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

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.3444 of 2009

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner was convicted under Section

¶21

138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act (for short 'the N.I.

¶22

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

courts below does not suffer from any illegality,

¶27

Crl.R.P.3444/2009

¶28

: 2 :

¶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.6,75,000/- (Rupees six lakh seventy five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 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 the PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) Cr.P.C.

¶31

Crl.R.P.3444/2009

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶34

part as above.

¶35

The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay

¶36

the fine.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

dl/28.10.2016

¶41

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Sharafudeen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafudeen v. the State of Kerala

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

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