Rahim v. State Of Kerala
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. 1712 of 2015 () -------------------------------- Crl.A 69/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC 435/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-:
---------------------------------------- RAHIM, AGED 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR, VILAYIL MARBLES, MARKET ROAD ANCHAALUMOODU, PERINADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:-: ---------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
2. BEENA D/O.DEVADASAN, PROPRIETOR, V.B.MARBLES KOONTHALLOOR (V.B.HOUSE, VALIYAKADA CHIRAYINKEEZHU DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).
R2 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.
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2015.
ORDER
The accused in C.C.No.435 of 2006 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 prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to the complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented for encashment due to the 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
-2Exts.P1 to P8 series were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. 5.
The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 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 this Court to indicate that the appreciation of the evidence or the 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 ten months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/17.12.2015 True Copy PA to Judge