Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

REJI, S/O. BABY versus ABUBACKER, S/O. KUNJAYAMMU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


REJI, S/O. BABY v. ABUBACKER, S/O. KUNJAYAMMU - Crl Rev Pet No. 356 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3163 (12 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 356 of 2007()

1. REJI, S/O. BABY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ABUBACKER, S/O. KUNJAYAMMU,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :12/02/2007

O R D E R

K.R.Udayabhanu,J.

Crl.R.P.No.356 of 2007

Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2007

ORDER

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.85,000/- under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said amount, if realised, to be given to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the signed blank cheque kept by him to pay the instalment for the vehicle purchased by him was lost and the same came into the possession of the complainant and that he has misused the same. According to him, the version of P.W.1, the complainant, is false. It is contended that it is evident that what he has stated in the cross examination that he knew the accused since 1960 is an utter lie. It is stated that the accused is aged only 22 years at the Crl.R.P.No.356 of 2007-D - 2 - relevant time. The Courts below have held that in the circumstances what exactly P.W.1 meant was that he is conversant with the family of the accused since 1960. The above conclusion is fortified from the statement of P.W.1 that he had asked to bring his father along with him when the accused requested for the loan. The above statement of P.W.1 that he knew the accused from 1960 onwards has no direct connection with the alleged borrowal and issuance of a cheque which was subsequently dishonoured for want of funds. The accused has not adduced any evidence. In the circumstances, I find that the findings of the Court below are liable to be upheld. All the same, considering the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant vide Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner/accused is granted four months time from today onwards to pay the amount of compensation. Crl.R.P.No.356 of 2007-D - 3 - In the result, the revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. The revision petitioner/accused shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad on 12.6.2007 to receive the sentence. K.R.Udayabhanu Judge vku/-


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.