Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M. NOUSHAD versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M. NOUSHAD v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 2306 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 57 (3 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2306 of 2006()

1. P.M.NOUSHAD
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :03/07/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2306 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2006

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The short contention raised was that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as security for a loan transaction of the brother of the accused. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been established. Crl.R.P.No. 2306 of 2006 2 Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. The appellate court indulgently modified the sentence imposed.

4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment of compensation as directed by the court below. There is no challenge on merits raised against the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction or sentence. I reckon that an informed and fair stand. All ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been established by the evidence. I find that the impugned judgments are absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail.

5. Coming to the question of sentence, I note that maximum permissible leniency was shown to the petitioner by the courts below. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and Crl.R.P.No. 2306 of 2006 3 and to pay the actual cheque amount alone as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. I am not satisfied that any further leniency needs or deserves to be shown. However I grant the petitioner time till 31.7.2006 to appear before the learned Magistrate and serve the impugned sentence. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps to execute the impugned sentence.

7. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.