Dismissed

Ashraf v. Salih

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/942/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' appreciation of evidence was correct and the sentence did not warrant interference. An six-month grace period to pay the fine was granted.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; appellant granted six months to pay the fine.

Ashraf Vs Salih — 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. 942 of 2015

¶6

Crl.A 492/2013 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE ST 1162/2011 of J.M.F.C., NADAPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

ASHRAF

¶9

S/O. AMMAD, AGED 42, MULLONTAVIDA HOUSE, VANIMEL AMSOM, VERKADAVU DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 506.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.SRINATH GIRISH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶12

1. SALIH

¶13

S/O. MAMMU HAJI, THIRUPURATH HOUSE, VANIMEL AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 506.

¶14

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶16

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

¶17

SCL.

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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”).

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and

¶25

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 is available before 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 of conviction by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this Court. The sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶26

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶27

However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2015

¶29

¶30

pay the fine. 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 fine.

¶31

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶32

Scl/26.02.18

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2015

¶34

Ashraf v. Salih

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf v. Salih

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

V.Radha Vs Rahul S.K. @ Lalu

C.R. Shaji Vs Balakrishnan