Raju Sreedharan vs Lal.V. Nair
2024 Latest Caselaw 14105 Ker

Kerala High Court

Raju Sreedharan vs Lal.V. Nair on 28 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
          TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 342 OF 2024
AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT   DATED   31.01.2024   IN   CRA   NO.64   OF    2021   OF
DISTRICT    COURT    &   SESSIONS   COURT,THODUPUZHA    ARISING     OUT   OF     THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2021 IN ST NO.48 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             RAJU SREEDHARAN
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O SREEDHARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURINJAPUZHA,
             PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685501

             BY ADVS.
             C.S.MANILAL
             S.NIDHEESH



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

     1       LAL.V. NAIR,
             S/O BHASKARAN NAIR, CHERUPADIKKAL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM,
             PEERMADE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685501

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


OTHER PRESENT:

             PP SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.342 of 2024                        2


                                             ORDER

It is against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, the accused came up in a prosecution under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

concurrent judgment of conviction rendered by both the

trial court and the first appellate court is resting on the

oral testimony of PW1, the complainant and the documentary

evidence produced showing the compliance of requirement

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Nothing was brought out to rebut the presumption available

under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the

time of cross examination of PW1, the complainant.

Necessarily, the judgment of conviction deserves no

interference. The sentence awarded also reflects a proper

balance between the mischief sought to be suppressed under

the Act and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances,

hence deserves no interference.

2. Having regard to the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, four months time is

granted to the petitioner to appear before the trial court

and to receive the sentence. Till that time, no coercive

steps shall be taken.

The Crl.R.P. will stand dismissed in limine with the

abovesaid direction.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE sv