Muhammed Najeeb Mannalathil vs M/S. Praveen Saree Sansar
2021 Latest Caselaw 976 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.194 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 371/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                       COURT KOZHIKODE- II

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2405/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL COURT)FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138, N.I.ACT
                           (TEMPORARY)


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             MUHAMMED NAJEEB MANNALATHIL
             AGED 40 YEARS, S/O UMMER MOULAVI, MANNALATHIL HOUSE,
             PAVANDOOR ROAD, KAKKOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

             BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP

RESPONDENT/S/RSPONDENTS/COMPLAIAT & STATE:

      1      M/S. PRAVEEN SAREE SANSAR
             2ND FLOOR, K.V COMPLEX, CALICUT,REPRESNTED BY ITS
             MANAGING PARTNER,RIZWAN UZZAMA ANSARI, AGED 30 YEARS,
             S/O MOINUDEEN ANSARI, 'ASHIYANA',2ND CROSS ROAD, PIPE
             LINE ROAD,PATTERI, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673
             917

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

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID
             R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.194 OF 2018

                             2

                      O R D E R

The revision petitioner was convicted and

sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.

Act').

2. Heard.

3. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence and concurrently found that

the revision petitioner executed Ext.P4 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 has been brought to the notice of this court to

indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the

concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In

the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.194 OF 2018

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.

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten

months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by

the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had

already deposited any amount before the trial court in

connection with this case, the said amount shall be

released to the complainant as part of the compensation.

SD/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/07.01.2021