Dismissed

V.Radha v. Rahul S.K. @ Lalu

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/689/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence and found no perversity in the conviction or sentence. A ten-month extension was granted for fine payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; conviction upheld. Extension of ten months granted for payment of fine.

V.Radha Vs Rahul S.K. @ Lalu — 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 689 of 2014

¶6

Crl.A 9/2013 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC 402/2009 of J.M.F.C.-III,PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

V.RADHA, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, PRASANTHI, RAIL NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. RAHUL S.K. @ LALU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, SREEPADMAM, ANAND NAGAR, KALLAKULANGARA, PALAKKAD-678009.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SCL.

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.689 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short “the N.I.Act”).

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties 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, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.689 of 2014

¶24

-2-

¶25

below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The sentence awarded

¶26

by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶27

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶28

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten months

¶29

to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶31

Scl/26.02.18

V.Radha v. Rahul S.K. @ Lalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Radha v. Rahul S.K. @ Lalu

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

S.R.Abhilash Vs Geetha S. Nair

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited Vs Manoj Kumar D

T.Thankachan Vs Sivakumar

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs Salih

C.R. Shaji Vs Balakrishnan