T.Mohammed Ajas vs Tharik Chandroth
2021 Latest Caselaw 7136 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.671 OF 2019

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 267/2013 DATED 07-02-2019 OF
   ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 4280/2010 DATED 31-07-2013 OF
         JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THALASSERY


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             T.MOHAMMED AJAS
             S/O ALI,AGED 41 YEARS
             RESIDING AT SAI SABEEL, P.O. MUZHPPILANGAD,
             THALASSERY TALUK.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.KHALID
             SRI.T.P.SAJID

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

      1      THARIK CHANDROTH
             AGED 31 YEARS
             S/O. MOOSSA,
             RESIDING AT CHANDROTH HOUSE,
             KODIYERI AMSOM, PARAL DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK
             670 101

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


             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.671 OF 2019

                             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.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 has been brought to the notice of this court

to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.671 OF 2019

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

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.

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

pursuant to the direction of this court, the said amount Crl.Rev.Pet.No.671 OF 2019

shall be released to the complainant as part of the

compensation.

SD/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/01.03.2021