The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part, upholding the conviction for cheque bounce but modifying the sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court and awarding Rs.1 lakh compensation.
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court; compensation of Rs.1,00,000 awarded.
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
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2007
CRA 522/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (CAST TRACK COURT-1), ALAPPUZHA ST 143/2001 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
T.THANKACHAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE.
BY ADV.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
R2 BY SHRI E C BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.256 of 2007
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').
submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the matter on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only leniency in the matter of sentence. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that
the courts below correctly appreciated the oral and
Crl.R.P. No.256/07
: 2 :
documentary evidence adduced by the parties 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. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Crl.R.P. No.256/07
: 3 :
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in
part.
However, the revision petitioner is granted six months
to pay the compensation.
sd/
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/23.2.18
// True copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the revision petition regarding conviction and sentence modification.
Whether the sentence imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act should be modified to include imprisonment and compensation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.THANKACHAN
SIVAKUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
