Dismissed

Haran Palaliath v. Peringottukara Namboothiri

Kerala HC12 Dec 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/2503/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the lower courts' appreciation of evidence and concurrent finding of guilt were not perverse and did not warrant interference. However, the court granted the petitioner eleven months to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted eleven months to pay compensation; payment under separate suit will wipe off penal liability.

Haran Palaliath Vs Peringottukara Namboothiri — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2503 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 336/2000 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 59/2013 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

HARAN PALALIATH AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

PALALIATH HOUSE, VALLAKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 PERINGOTTUKARA NAMBOOTHIRI

¶14

ANTHIKAD P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY P.VIJAYAKUMAR, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMPLAINANT SABHA.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2503 of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶22

by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶23

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

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The courts below correctly appreciated the

¶26

evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner.

¶27

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 offecne under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2503 of 2013

¶29

-3-

¶30

does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶31

The sentence awarded by the appellate court also

¶32

does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶33

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

Needless to state the payment towards the execution of the decree in O.S. No.617 of 1999 will wipe off the penal liability to pay the compensation as per the sentence awarded in this case to the extent of the quantum of such payment.

¶36

Dated this the 13^th day December 2018.

¶37

¶38

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶39

// True copy // PA to Judge

¶40

dl/

Haran Palaliath v. Peringottukara Namboothiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haran Palaliath v. Peringottukara Namboothiri

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

A.G.Raju Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

V. Ravindran Vs the Secretary

M.T. Abdullakutty Vs Karasseri Grama Panchayath

Saviour George Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Lekshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Haridasan. K Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer