Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
USHADEVI – Appellant
Versus
SASIKUMAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of conviction and sentencing framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel for revision petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 3. judicial reasoning around sentencing discretion and adequacy. (Para 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. sentencing guidelines and principles in section 138 matters. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. modification of sentence and order of the court. (Para 16) |
C.R’
ORDER
What’s the sentence to be imposed on an accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the question that arises for consideration?
2. The revision petitioner had filed C.C.No.164/2009 before the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Alappuzha, alleging the first respondent to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('Act' in short). The learned Magistrate convicted the first respondent for the said offence and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-; and if the fine amount was realised, the same to be paid to the revision petitioner as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Code’). Ch
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
