Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Baby M.M vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co (P) Ltd on 6 November, 2015

Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

              FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937

                                     Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1428 of 2015 ()
                                            --------------------------------
         Crl.A 162/2013 of Ist ADL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
                                ST 111/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II,THODUPUZHA


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------------------------------

           BABY M.M., AGED 63 YEARS
           MAPILAKUDIYIL HOUSE, CHATTUPARA P.O., ADIMALY
           IDUKKI DISTRICT

           BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO (P) LTD
           ARCO ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024
           REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
           C.KARUNAN, DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

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

           R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN
           R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.R.GITHESH

           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
          ON 06-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



                 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
                      Crl.R.P. No.1428 of 2015
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 6th day of November 2015

                                O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.111 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha.

2. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,47,948/-. The appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, Crl.R.P.1428/2015 : 2 : this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard.

4. The prosecution allegation is that towards the discharge of the liability, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P8 cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued to the revision petitioner, which was returned as "unclaimed' as the revision petitioner did not incline to receive the same, even after the receipt of intimation from the postal authorities. However, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period or thereafter. Crl.R.P.1428/2015 : 3 :

5. Before the trial court, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

6. The courts below, relying on the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the complainant, concurrently found that the revision petitioner had executed Ext.P8 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since there is concurrent finding on facts, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same unless the finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said Crl.R.P.1428/2015 : 4 : circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not warrant any interference by this court.

7. 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 call for any interference by this court.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine, as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Sd/ B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/6.11.2015