Mohammed Arshad v. The M. Ravikumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1675 of 2015 () -------------------------------- CRL.A 363/2013 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM ST 112/2011 of J.M.F.C.-IV, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ARSHAD PATTATHIL PILLA VEEDU, HOUSE NO: 313, ADITHYA NAGAR VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

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

1. M. RAVIKUMAR PROPRIETOR, M/S.ALUMMOOTTIL AGENCIES RESIDING AT MAHIMA, KUNNATHAN VILA, ERAVIPURAM P.O. KOLLAM - 691 011.

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1675 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December 2015

O R D E R

The accused in S.T.No.112 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - IV, Kollam has filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act).

2. Heard.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that towards the discharge of the liability, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The

Crl.R.P.1675/2015 : 2 :

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.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner.

5. The courts below, relying on the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties, concurrently found that the revision petitioner had 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. Since there is concurrent finding on facts, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same unless the finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that

Crl.R.P.1675/2015 : 3 :

the appreciation of evidence or concurrent finding by the courts below was 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 the N.I. Act does not warrant any interference by this court.

6. The sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not call for any interference by this court. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine, as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Sd/ B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/.14.12..2015 // True Copy // PA to Judge