High Court bench dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act, finding no perversity in evidence appreciation, but granted ten months to pay compensation.
Revision Petition dismissed; ten months granted to pay compensation.
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
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 606 of 2014
CRA 215/2013 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
ST 732/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
K.R. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.V.K.RAGHAVAN, KUTTISSERIL VEEDU, THURUTHY PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
BY ADV.SRI.BIJU ABRAHAMS
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1. SURESH KUMAR.D.
S/O.P.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR, THARAMEL VEEDU, POOVATHOOR PO, PIN 689 531, KOIPPURAM VILLAGE
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON
SMT.LOVELY SAMSON
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.606 of 2014
Dated this the 1st day of March, 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, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”).
Crl.R.P. No.606 of 2014
-: 2 :-
N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.
The sentence awarded by the appellate court also does
not warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the compensation.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of the courts below appreciating evidence under Section 138 of the NI Act warrants interference by this Court.
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court warrants interference in the Criminal Revision Petition.
Whether the revision petitioner should be given time to pay compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.R. SURESH KUMAR
SURESH KUMAR.D.
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
