Dismissed

T.N.Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition against conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court held the lower courts appreciated materials correctly and found sufficient grounds to uphold the verdict and sentence against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, but the appellant was granted six months to pay the fine.

T.N.Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 160 of 2018

¶6

CRA 6/2016 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM ST 51/2015 of J.M.F.C - II, CHENGANACHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

T.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 57 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O. CHANGANACHERRY

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶13

ERNAKULAM

¶14

JOSEPH VARGHESE

¶15

ANCHEKKARA HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O.

¶16

CHANGANACHERRY

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI E C BINEESH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.160 of 2018

¶22

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th day of February 2018

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶25

by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶26

Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

¶27

Heard.

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶29

submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the revision petition on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only time to pay the fine. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that

¶30

the courts below correctly appreciated the materials and

¶31

Crl.R.P. No.160/18

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict

¶34

of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138

¶35

of the N.I. Act.

¶36

The sentence awarded by the courts below also

¶37

does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶38

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶39

However, the revision petitioner is granted six months

¶40

to pay the fine .

¶41

Sd /-

¶42

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

dl/6.2.18

¶44

// True copy //

¶45

PA to Judge

T.N.Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

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

Devi v Thattil Vs C D Mathai

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Muhammed Jaseel Vs State- Rep. by Ci of Police

K.Padmakumar Vs K.Ellangovan I.A.S

Muhammedkutty A.C Vs State of Kerala