Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J
K SASI – Appellant
Versus
SATHEESAN L – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1474/2015
Negotiable Instruments - Criminal Conviction - N.I. Act - Section 138 - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for issuing a dishonored cheque, affirming the evidence presented and finding no grounds for interference.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, despite receiving a statutory notice regarding the cheque. The petitioner did not pay the amount within the specified period.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below conclusively found that the petitioner executed the cheque, and the defense was appropriately dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact were deemed satisfactory under Section 138, with no indication of any perverse conclusions.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were justified, and if there were any valid grounds for interference by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the concurrent factual findings from the lower courts are binding unless proven otherwise, maintaining the integrity of the findings regarding the issuance of the dishonored cheque.
Final Decision: Revision Petition dismissed, with six months granted for payment of compensation.
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 1274 of
2008 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta, who in this Revision Petition challenges the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued which was received by the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount within the statutory period or thereafter.
4. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined on behalf of the revision petitioner.
5. The courts below, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The defence set up by the revision petitioner was also repelled by the courts below. Since there is concurrent finding on facts, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same, unless the finding is perverse or incorrect. The courts below concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under of the N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appellate court had taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the compensation ordered by the appellate court, as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
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
