Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19349 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
    TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                     CRL.REV.PET NO. 330 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2016 IN CRA 103/2015 OF COURT OF
          ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2015 IN S.T.NO.18/2012 OF
        JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, NEDUMANGAD


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

            ANILKUMAR, S/O KUNJUKRISHANAN PILLAI,
            PC 7499 (HEAD CONSTABLE), A.R.POLICE CAMP, NANDAVANAM,
            PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADV. SRI. M.R.SARIN PANICKER


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KEALA ERNAKULAM.
    2       PADMINI P. NAIR DO.GOMATHY
            ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, KOPPAM, VITHURA PO,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

            R1 BY SRI M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

            R2 BY ADVS.SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
                       SMT.M.SANTHI




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.330 of 2016

                                   2


                                  ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021

This revision is filed against concurrent findings of guilt of

the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and orders of

conviction and sentence passed by Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court III, Nedumangad and Additional Court of

Sessions II, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Notice has been issued on admission to the 2 nd

respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner as

well as the 2nd respondent are heard.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner did

not invite this Court's attention to any jurisdictional error in the

judgments under challenge as held by the Apex Court in Bir

Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)]. In that

event, the revision being not maintainable, revision petition is

dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

NAB