Dismissed

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup v. Gopinathan Pillai

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/1346/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and lenient sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the appellate court's view was lenient and no interference was warranted, granting the petitioner six months to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

The revision petitioner was granted six months to pay the compensation requested by learned counsel.

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup Vs Gopinathan Pillai — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1346 OF 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 619/2006 DATED 19-02-2010 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1156/2003 DATED 31-08-2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

E.V.RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, EDACHAPPALLI VEEDU, NEAR KATTAYATHUMUKKU,KAVANAD, SAKTHIKULANGARA,KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 GOPINATHAN PILLAI, S/o.AGOPSLS PILLAI, LEKSHMI NIVAS, MANAKKAD CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA,KOLLAM.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.1346 of 2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The revision petitioner was convicted

¶21

and sentenced concurrently by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

¶22

2. Heard.

¶23

3. The courts below correctly

¶24

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque

¶25

as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. No material has

¶26

been brought to the notice of this Court to

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.1346 of 2010

¶28

-3-

¶29

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 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appellate court had taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. In the said circumstances, the sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶30

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to

¶31

pay the compensation as requested by the

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.1346 of 2010

¶33

-4-

¶34

learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶35

sd/-

¶36

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

STK

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup v. Gopinathan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup v. Gopinathan Pillai

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

Chakrapani Vs the State of Kerala

Adarsh Vs Kerala State

Vinod @ Joy Vs State of Kerala

Latheef P. Vs the State of Kerala

Al Ameen Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs State of Kerala