High Court held that a revision petition cannot maintain to challenge acquittal in Section 138 NI Act case. Complainant r remedy is appeal to HC with SL under Section 378(4) CPC. Petition dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed as not maintainable.
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
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 411/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-1)KOTTAYAM DATED 15-05-2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 71/2008 of J.M.F.C - I,VAIKOM DATED 27-08-2009
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
K.R. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 47, S/O. OMANA,
PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31
K.R. GANESWARAN KASILA KRISHNA IYER RAMAMOORTHY,HOUSE NO. 18 B, WARD NO. 58, STREET NO. 30, PUTHUNAKALIPPETTY (MAHALIPETTY ROAD), MADHURAI TOWN, TAMIL NADU
OTHER PRESENT:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2012 -2-
ORDER
The accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against which the accused filed appeal before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. As per Judgment dated 15-5-2010 in Crl.Appeal No. 411 of 2009, the Sessions Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and acquitted the accused for the said offence, against which this Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant before the trial Court.
for the 2nd respondent, who is the accused before the trial court.
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2012
-3-
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2012
-4-
Court with Special Leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the above ratio, the present
Revision Petition is not maintainable.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
ani/
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 can challenge the order of acquittal of the trial court before the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition.
Whether the proper remedy for a complainant challenging an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is an appeal to the High Court with Special Leave under Section 378(4)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Omana Jose and another v. State of Kerala and OthersRelied on¶27
Omana Jose and another v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (2) KLT 504]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.R. SUNIL KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
K.R. GANESWARAN
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
