Dismissed

Mohandas R. v. Ouseph

Kerala HC11 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/2532/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Court held evidence appreciation was correct and no interference warranted under Section 422 CrPC. Granted the petitioner eight months to pay the fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner granted eight months to pay the fine.

Mohandas R. Vs Ouseph — 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

TUESDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2532 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 683/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, THRISSUR DATED 17-09-2012

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 829/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KUNNAMKULAM DATED 11-10-2010

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MOHANDAS R. AGED 59, S/O. RAVUNNI VAIDYAR P.O.VENNUR, (VIA) PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK.R

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 OUSEPH, S/O. INASU, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VELUR VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK

¶13

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

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR .E.C. BINEESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2018, 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. 2532 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. 2532 of 2012

¶27

-3-

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2018.

¶30

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶31

ani/

¶32

JUDGE

Mohandas R. v. Ouseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohandas R. v. Ouseph

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

K.v.Shaheer Vs State of Kerala

T. Sulaikha Vs T. Sathyapalan

Ruksana Thayyil Vs K.Ismail

K.R. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Rajendran Vs Aiswarya Enterprises

K.P. Varghese Vs Abdul Khader