Dismissed

Surendran T.N v. P.R Raveendran

Kerala HC17 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/2119/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court dismissed the petition as no error was shown in the lower courts appreciation of evidence or finding of guilt. The court granted ten months time for payment of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; ten months time granted for payment of fine.

Surendran T.N Vs P.R Raveendran — 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

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 26TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2119 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 20/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KALPETTA DATED 29-06-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 200/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II, SULTHANBATHERY DATED 11-01-2010

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SURENDRAN T.N, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN CHETTY, THAZHATHOOR HOUSE, THAZHATHOOR P.O., CHEERAL, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 P.R RAVEENDRAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAMAYYAN CHETTY, PADIPPURA HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK – 673 592

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

E C BINNESH- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶19

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2119 of 2012

¶20

-2-

¶21

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

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that 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, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner. 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 by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶24

The sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶25

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶26

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2119 of 2012

¶27

-3-

¶28

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine, as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶29

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2018.

¶30

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶31

ani/

¶32

/true copy/

¶33

P.S. to Judge

Surendran T.N v. P.R Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran T.N v. P.R Raveendran

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

Jebby M.Aliyar Vs State

K.T.Hassan Koya Vs E.P.Ajith

Shanmughan Vs the Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

V.B.Mqni Vs State of Kerala

B.Venkita Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Kumar Vs Satheeshkumar A.N