SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ANOOP KUMAR M.K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM, SMT.ANINDITA NANDAKUMAR
For the Respondents: SHRI.A.V.RAVI, SMT.M.D.ROSHINI

O R D E R

Both these criminal revision petitions have been filed challenging the conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act').

2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in both cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not challenge the conviction and sentence. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be granted twelve months' time to suffer the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount.

3. Having heard both sides and taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, while confirming the conviction and sentence, the petitioner is granted ten months'

time to appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount in both cases.

The criminal revision petitions are disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top