Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.RAGHUNATH versus P.V.RAMESH BABU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.RAGHUNATH v. P.V.RAMESH BABU - Crl Rev Pet No. 4311 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2561 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4311 of 2006()

1. P.RAGHUNATH
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.V.RAMESH BABU
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :05/12/2006

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

CRL.R.P.NO. 4311 OF 2006

Dated this the 5th day of December,2006

O R D E R

The petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The sentence to pay fine was altered and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. CRL.R.P. NO. 4311 OF 2006

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the compensation amount and that a reasonable time may be granted to him to pay the amount. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and the conviction and sentence as imposed by the Appellate Court are confirmed. However, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount. The default sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ CRL.R.P. NO. 4311 OF 2006

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

CRL.M.APPL.NO. 12223 OF 2006

Dated this the 5th day of December,2006

O R D E R

This is an application to condone the delay of four days in filing the Revision. Normally, notice should go to the first respondent before condoning the delay. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner confines his prayer for the grant of a reasonable time to pay the compensation amount, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the first respondent either in the application for condonation of delay or in the Criminal Revision Petition. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The delay is condoned. Number the Crl.R.P. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ CRL.R.P. NO. 4311 OF 2006

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. OF

O R D E R

September, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.