Dismissed

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/346/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking interference with the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings and quashed only the accrued liability while granting a stay to enable payment of the fine.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted ten months to pay the fine.

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 346 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 90/2012 of SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 15-01-2015

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 52/2011 of J.M.F.C. - II, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 22-03-2012

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶9

SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 'GOKULAM', MANAPALLY SOUTH, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPALLY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

2 JISHA SATHEESH W/O.SATHEESH, CHENAKARAPADEETTATHIL, PERUNADU, CLAPPANA PO, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 525.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. E C BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 346 of 2015

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶22

by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶23

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

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and

¶26

documentary evidence 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.

¶27

The sentence awarded by the appellate court also

¶28

does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶29

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶30

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 346 of 2015

¶31

-3-

¶32

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months

¶33

to pay the fine, as requested by the learned counsel for the

¶34

revision petitioner.

¶35

I make it clear that the payment towards the execution

¶36

of the decree, if any, in the civil suit in respect of Ext.P1

¶37

cheque will wipe off the penal liability to pay the fine as

¶38

per the sentence awarded by the appellate court to the extent of the quantum of such payment.

¶39

Dated this the 18^th day of September 2018.

¶40

¶41

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶42

dl/

¶43

// True copy // PA to Judge

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

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

Surendran T.N Vs P.R Raveendran

V.B.Mqni Vs State of Kerala

B.Venkita Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Puthanari Ali Bappu Vs State of Kerala

D.Rajeev Vs B.Anil Kumar

P.P.Kunhahammed Vs v.v.Krishnan