Dismissed

S.Abusa v. K.Janardhanan Pillai

Kerala HC1 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1146/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition filed by the accused against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a bounced cheque. The High Court observed that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and the concurrent finding of conviction was not perverse or incorrect, warranting no interference. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was grante

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The revision petitioner was granted eleven months to pay the fine.

S.Abusa Vs K.Janardhanan Pillai — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1146 of 2016

¶6

CRA 204/2014 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CC 72/2007 of ADDL.C.J.M., TRIVANDRUM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.

¶9

S.ABUSA, D/O. SULAKHA BEEVI, LATHA BHAVAN, HOUSE NO. 47, NETAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE.:

¶12

1. K.JANARDHANAN PILLAI BN 35, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN- 695 011.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶15

SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

STK

¶19

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶20

-------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.1146 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2018

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”).

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence 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, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision

¶26

Crl. R.P. No.1146 of 2016

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. The sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶29

In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted eleven months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶30

Needless to state that, if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the fine.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

STK

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

S.Abusa v. K.Janardhanan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Abusa v. K.Janardhanan Pillai

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

Mr. Shahul Hameed M Vs Mr. Chandrababu

Padhmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Shakeela Vs Assainar

Revishankar Vs Luthufudheen

Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

K.Sudhakaran Vs Badarudeen