This High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, finding no perversity in the lower courts' evaluation of evidence. A brief extension for fine payment was granted.
Revision petition dismissed; six months extension granted for payment of 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
WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 28TH BHADRA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1339 of 2012
Crl.A 459/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), NORTH PARAVUR
ST 134/2010 of J.M.F.C.- III, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHAJU THOMAS AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE P.A.THOMAS, PUTHENANGADY HOUSE, NAZRETH ROAD, ALUVA.
BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJI RAGHAVAN AGED 40 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, POYYATHARA HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ALUVA-1.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
OTHER PRESENT:
RI. C. K.PRASAD-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1339 of 2012
ORDER
The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the N.I.Act”).
2. Heard.
3. The courts below correctly evaluated
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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1339 of 2012
-3-
the revision 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 courts below also does not warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 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.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Scl/22.9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was perverse or incorrect warranting interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHAJU THOMAS
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
