In an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, finding no perversity in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence and sentence. The court granted the petitioner six months to pay compensation.
Revision petition dismissed; petitioner granted six months 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
WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1734 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 169/2011 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 28-05-2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 463/2009 of SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER:
K.T.HASSAN KOYA MENOTH, THIRUANNUR ROAD, KALLAI POST, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE-3
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 E.P.AJITH S/O.SREEDHARAN, SREEVIHAR, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE673003
2 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
R1 BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.V.G.ARUN
OTHER PRESENT:
R2 BY SRI E C BINEESH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1734 of 2012
-2-
O R D E R
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. 1734 of 2012
-3-
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 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 direction of this court or the lower appellate court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the compensation.
Dated this the 12th day of September 2018.
sd
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/
// True copy // PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by lower courts warrants interference.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to time to pay the compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. T. Hassan Koya Menoth
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
