Dismissed

Jose Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2024Crl.Rev.Pet/306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act, concurrently upheld by trial court and appellate court. Counsel conceded the conviction needed no interference; the court dismissed the revision but granted three months to remit the fine, with no coercive steps till then.

What did the court decide?

Three months' time granted to remit the fine amount; no coercive steps till then; petitioner to appear before trial court to receive sentence.

Jose Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 306 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN CRA NO.127 OF 2022
OF SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 08.11.2021 IN ST NO.246 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSE MATHEW
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O MATHEW, THANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA P.O,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685608

¶9

BY ADVS.
V.H.JASMINE
RAHMATH C.A.
THOMAS P.MATHEWS
SUMAYYA K.B.
SATHEESH P. MATHEWS
GILDA DAVIS
JOHIN JOHNSON

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶12

2THODUPUZHA CHITS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL JACOB. THODUPUZHA P.O,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685584

¶13

R1 BY ADV.SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

CRL.REV.PET NO. 306 OF 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

It is against the judgment of conviction and

¶19

the order of sentence by the trial court and the
First Appellate Court, the accused came up in a
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.

¶20

2. When the matter came up for admission, the

¶21

learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly
submitted that the concurrent judgment of
conviction, in fact, deserves no interference as it

¶22

is based on the oral testimony of the complainant

¶23

and also on satisfaction of compliance of mandate
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

¶24

Act. The signature affixed as that of the

¶25

complainant in the cheque is not in dispute. The
initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the

¶26

due execution stood discharged and there are
concurrent findings in that behalf. The sentence
awarded is the bare minimum, the fine amount for the

¶27

¶28

CRL.REV.PET NO. 306 OF 2024

¶29

amount covered by the cheque.

¶30

3. At the fag end, the learned counsel for the

¶31

revision petitioner pressed for leniency in the
matter by granting six months time to remit the fine
amount. Taking into consideration the submission
made by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, three months time is granted to the
petitioner to remit the fine amount as ordered by

¶32

the trial court and stood confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. Till that time, no coercive steps
shall be taken against the revision petitioner.
The petitioner shall appear before the trial court
within that time to receive the sentence.

¶33

The Crl.R.P. will stand dismissed accordingly.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶36

SPV

Jose Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Mathew 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

Dr.Abdul Rasheed, Vs State of Kerala

Ticken Rout Vs State of Kerala

Kunju @ Kunju Panicken Vs State of Kerala

Nagirsha N.K Vs M/S. Poulose Rubbers

Sherly Albert Vs Sheeba George

Aravind.P Vs State of Kerala