← Library
High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/1710/2015dismissed

Dhanapalan v. State Of Kerala

2015-12-173 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1710 of 2015 () -------------------------------- Crl.A 220/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC 1122/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

----------------------------------------- DHANAPALAN S/O RAGHAVAN, "DHANYA", MUDAPURAM PO KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA RERPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

2. A.G. VIJAYAMOHANDAS SREEDEVI, TC 76/2292, ANAYARA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1710 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2015.

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No.1122 of 2007 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal, 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 learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the matter on merits and that the revision petitioner only needs time for payment of fine.

4.

Suffice it to say that having gone through the judgment of the courts below, 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

Crl.R.P. No.1710 of 2015 -2interference by this Court. 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 ten months to pay the fine.

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/17.12.2015 True Copy PA to Judge