Murukesan v. Uco Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1526 of 2015 () -------------------------------- Crl.A 264/2013 OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST 3054/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

------------------------------------ MURUKESAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O.NEELAKANTAN, UDC, TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALNADAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

---------------------------

1. UCO BANK REGISTERED OFFICE CALCUTTA REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER ANANTHA NARAYANAN R, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, UCO BANK MARKET ROAD BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678 001.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPAK JOY.K.

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2015

ORDER

The accused in S.T.No.3054 of 2007 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad has filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

2.

Heard.

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 to the complainant. 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 received by the revision petitioner.

-24.

Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined for the revision petitioner.

5.

The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or concurrent finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act does not warrant any interference by this court. 6.

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.

-3In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine.

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/23.11.2015 True Copy PA to Judge