The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No interference was warranted as the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence and the fine was granted an extension.
Petition dismissed; revision petitioner granted ten months to pay the 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
FRIDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1572 of 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 114/2012 of J.M.F.C.III, KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 15-07-2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 279/2013 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM DATED 19-08-2015
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.G. MATHEW
S/O. GEORGE, MARANGATTUPUTHUPARAMBIL, PERUNNA WEST P.O., CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 O.V. RAJEEV
S/O. VASUDEVAN, OLICKAL VEEDU, CHENAPPADY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI. JOSEKUTTY MATHEW SRI. D. SREENATH
OTHER PRESENT:
B JAYASURYA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1572 of 2015
-2-
ORDER
The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1572 of 2015
-3-
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
However, the revision petitioner is granted ten 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.
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2018.
ani/
Sd/-B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
/true copy/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of the Lower Courts that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act warrants interference by this Court.
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court warrants interference by this Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.G. Mathew
O.V. Rajeev
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
