Partly allowed

Noby K.K v. Fr. Thomas

Kerala HC3 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1286/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition. The bench affirmed the lower courts' finding that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for executing a dishonoured cheque. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted eleven months to pay the fine.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, but an extension of eleven months was granted to the petitioner to pay the fine.

Noby K.K Vs Fr. Thomas — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1286 of 2015

¶6

CRA 279/2014 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM

¶7

ST 75/2013 of J.M.F.C.II, PALA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶9

NOBY K.K, AGED 38, S/O KRISHNAN, KUTTUMMAKKAL HOUSE, KOLANI PO, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. FR. THOMAS, S/O JOSEPH, MANNURAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA, CHETHIMATTOM PALA PO, KOTTAYAM-686 575

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

STK

¶17

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

-------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.1286 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2018

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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”).

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 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

¶24

Crl. R.P. No.1286 of 2015

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

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.

¶27

In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted elevan months to pay the fine.

¶28

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.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶31

STK

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Noby K.K v. Fr. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noby K.K v. Fr. Thomas

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

Salimkumar.P.S. Vs the Ezhikkara Grama Panchayat

Raju Thomas Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd

Sajeeb.S Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Dahakodi Chitts Private Limited Vs Union of India

G.Jacob Vs Managing Director

G. Jacob Vs M.D, Kerala Water Authority