Dismissed

Suhara v. Sulekha Majeed

Kerala HC7 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/314/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence and their finding was not perverse. The petition was dismissed without interfering with the conviction or sentence, but compensation was granted timeframes.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; an order granting the petitioner eleven months to pay the balance compensation was passed.

Suhara Vs Sulekha Majeed — 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

FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 314 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 944/2010 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 594/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR DATED 11-11-2016

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SUHARA

¶10

AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.THOPPIYIL ABOOBACKER, P.VEMBALLUR DESOM, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI. P.K. SAJEEV

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 SULEKHA MAJEED

¶14

W/O.MAJEED, PARAYIL HOUSE, VEKKODE DESOM, S.N.PURAM VILLGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680664.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI. K.S. RAJESH SRI. M. SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

B JAYASURYA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 314 of 2017

¶22

-2-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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').

¶25

Heard.

¶26

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.

¶27

The sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 314 of 2017 -3-

¶29

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

The learned counsel for the first respondent Adv. Sri. Shaju Purushothaman has submitted that the first respondent had already received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only) during the course of mediation. Therefore, the revision petitioner needs to pay only the balance amount of compensation to comply with the direction of payment of compensation. Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court, pursuant to the direction of this court or the lower appellate court, the said amount will be treated as part payment of the compensation.

¶32

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2018.

¶33

Sd/-B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶34

ani/

¶35

JUDGE /true copy/

Suhara v. Sulekha Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhara v. Sulekha Majeed

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

Muhammed Jaleel K.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Hareesh Poojari Vs Sree Malavika Chits India Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs. Ambily Joshy Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar

M/S. a.P.Varghese & Sons Vs M/S. Bensons International

Gangadharan Vs Krishna Sopanam Kuries (P) Ltd.

P.G. Mathew Vs O.V. Rajeev