The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, upholding courts below findings.
Revision Petition dismissed; ten months granted to pay compensation.
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
TUESDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 390/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 365/2003 of J.M.F.C.-1,KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
JOSEPH VARGHESE, S/o.PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.TONY PETTAH SRI.THAMBI JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SHAJI ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKEKKOTTU HOUSE, VATTAKUNNU P.O., MEENADAM.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX GEORGE SRI.KOSHY GEORGE
R1 BY SRI. E C. BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2006
-2-
ORDER
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”).
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2006
-3-
or incorrect. In the said circumstances,
the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below 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.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the compensation 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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2006
direction of this Court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the
compensation.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2006
-5-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appreciation of evidence and concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act warrants interference in criminal revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Joseph Varghese
State of Kerala, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Shaji Abraham
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
