Sindhu Ajayan vs Joseph Thomas on 21 November, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sindhu Ajayan vs Joseph Thomas on 21 November, 2015

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     SATURDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/30TH KARTHIKA, 1937

                  Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1514 of 2015 ()
                  --------------------------------
           Crl.A 472/2013 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

    ST 1189/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
                             CHERTHALA


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

       SINDHU AJAYAN
       KAITHAKUZHIYIL, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA
       ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

       BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD

     RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
     -------------------------------------

     1. JOSEPH THOMAS
       PONNAKERIL, ULAVAIPPU P.O., PANAVALLY
       CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688001.

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

       R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH


       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON  21-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SCL.



                 B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
               -------------------------------------
                    Crl.R.P. No.1514 of 2015
                --------------------------------------
           Dated this the 21st day of November, 2015


                              ORDER

The accused in S.T.No.1189 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Cherthala has filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to 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 on behalf of the complainant, which was received by the revision petitioner.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Crl.R.P. No.1514 of 2015 -2- Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

5. The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence and 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. No material is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act does not warrant any interference by this court.

6. The appellate court had taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/21.11.2015

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court