Partly allowed

K.Sudhakaran v. Badarudeen

Kerala HC1 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/2793/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 N.I. Act, the High Court found the lower courts' appreciation of evidence correct but modified the sentence. The fine was reduced to Rs. 2,35,000 with two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner was granted six months to pay the fine, which, if realised, must be paid to the complainant as compensation under

What did the court decide?

Fine reduced to Rs. 2,35,000 with two months simple imprisonment; six months to pay. Fine, if realised, payable to complainant as compensation.

K.Sudhakaran Vs Badarudeen — 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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2793 of 2008

¶6

CRA 149/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC 223/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

K.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.RAMAN ACHARI KAVIL VEEDU, MAMPALLIKKUNNATHU CHERRY, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

BADARUDEEN BISMI MANZILIL, KUNNANALLOOR CHERRY,, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶12

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

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI E C BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.2793 of 2008

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1^st day of August 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 is available before the court to indicate that the

¶22

Crl.R.P. No.2793/08 : 2 :

¶23

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and also the nature of the transaction, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakh thirty five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine amount is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.2793/08 : 3 :

¶26

complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶27

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶28

The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay

¶29

the fine.

¶30

¶31

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶32

dl/1.8.18 // True Copy // PA to Judge

K.Sudhakaran v. Badarudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sudhakaran v. Badarudeen

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

Mr. Shahul Hameed M Vs Mr. Chandrababu

Padhmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Shakeela Vs Assainar

Revishankar Vs Luthufudheen

S.Abusa Vs K.Janardhanan Pillai

Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala