Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJUMON versus G. SHIBU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUNJUMON v. G. SHIBU - Crl Rev Pet No. 3233 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 737 (13 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3233 of 2006()

1. KUNJUMON
... Petitioner

Vs

1. G.SHIBU
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :13/09/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3233 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 13th day of September, 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. 16,500/- and bears the date 15.10.2003. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs.18,500/- as compensation and cost and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months and 15 days.

3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. No defence worth the name was advanced. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. It is in these circumstances that the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned Crl.R.P.No. 3233 of 2006 2 concurrent judgments.

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 does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. She only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence and some further time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount and avoid the default sentence. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground against the verdict of guilty and conviction, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. Having gone through the concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction, sentence and the direction for payment of compensation are absolutely justified and unexceptionable.

5. Maximum leniency and indulgence have been shown to the petitioner and I find no reason for any further leniency. However it can be directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 15.11.2006 to pay the amount and to avoid the default sentence. Till then Crl.R.P.No. 3233 of 2006 3 the sentence shall not be executed. If the fine amount is not paid by then, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to take necessary steps to execute the impugned sentence.

7. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above observations/directions. (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.