The High Court of Kerala revisited an order convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding no perversity in the courts' appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact.
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. 2116 of 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 547/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM DATED 27-06-2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 53/2010 of J.M.F.C. - II, ETTUMANUR DATED 27-11-2010
REVISION PETITIONER:
M.K.GOPINATHAN, S/O.SHANKARAN ACHARY ARUN NIVAS, NATTASSERY KARA, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
2 V.GOKULAN NAIR, ULLANNOOR HOUSE S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001.
OTHER PRESENT:
R2 BY SHRI 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. 2116 of 2011
-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').
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. 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 of conviction by the courts below under Section
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2116 of 2011
-3-
138 of the N.I. Act, does not warrant any interference by
this court.
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, 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 // PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act warrants interference by the High Court?
Whether the sentence awarded by the lower courts warrants interference by the High Court?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.K.GOPINATHAN
STATE OF KERALA
V.GOKULAN NAIR
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
