Selvaraj vs Syed Ibrahim
2021 Latest Caselaw 11527 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.180 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 104/2018 DATED 11-02-2021
        OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 155/2016 DATED 21-05-2018
     OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS V, PALAKKAD


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              SELVARAJ,
              AGED 60 YEARS,
              S/O.SUBRAMANIA MOOTHAN,
              GEETHANJALI,
              BEHIND BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE,
              VADAKKANTHARA (P.O.),
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

              BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       SYED IBRAHIM,
              AGED 43 YEARS,
              S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SAK HOUSE,
              KATTAYAM STREET, PUDUNAGARAM,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 503.

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


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.180 of 2021


                                     -2-




                                   ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the courts below under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

2. Service is complete. However,

there is no appearance for the first

respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and the learned Senior

Public Prosecutor.

4. The courts below correctly

appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence and concurrently found that the

revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque Crl.R.P.No.180 of 2021

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

been brought to the notice of 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

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not

warrant any interference by this Court. The

sentence awarded by the courts below also

does not warrant any interference by this

Court.

In the result, this Criminal

Revision Petition stands dismissed. Crl.R.P.No.180 of 2021

However, the revision petitioner is granted

ten months to pay the fine/compensation as

requested by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK