Single judge dismissed the criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, refusing to interfere as the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence. The petitioner was granted six months to pay compensation.
Petitioner granted six months to pay compensation to the complainant.
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 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 322 of 2018
CRA 78/2016 of ADDL.S.C, NORTH PARAVUR
ST 1231/2014 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED
BAIJU JOHN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BABY JOHN, NEST, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683517.
BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.A.VINOD
SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI E C BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.322 of 2018
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 revision petition on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only time to pay the compensation. 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.322/18
: 2 :
documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 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.
does not warrant any interference by this court.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the compensation.
I make it clear that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court in connection with this case, the said amount shall be treated as part payment of the compensation.
Crl.R.P. No.322/18
: 3 :
I further make it clear that the payment, which may be
directly made to the complainant, will be treated as sufficient compliance of payment of compensation, provided the complainant files an affidavit in this regard
before the trial court.
SD B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/9.3.18
// True copy //
PA to Judge
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BAIJU JOHN
STATE OF KERALA
BSUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
