Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

SATHEESH KUMAR K. Versus SHEELAVATHI, TALUK AND STATE OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

2017 (2) TMI 701 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Extension of time for payment of fine - dishonor of cheque - petitioner submitted that though he could not deposit the fine amount within the time stipulated he intends to make the deposit but that the Court below is not accepting the said amount on the ground that the time granted by this Court had already expired - Held that:- Considering the pleas made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the time for payment of the fine amount could be extended suitably in the interest of justic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of warrant if any, in pursuance of the execution of the sentence in this case will stand under suspension. The learned Public Prosecutor will convey these directions the competent police authorities for necessary compliance. - Crl.M.C. No.199 of 2017 - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ORDER The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I Act as per the j .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n S.T.No.108 of 2005 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg. 2. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her thereunder to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period or thereafter. 5. Before the court below, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner. 6. The courts below, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The defence set up b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oes not warrant any interference by this court. 7. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The cheque is for an amount of 1,00,000/-. Considering ₹ the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of 1,00,000/- ₹ to secure the ends of justice. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (iv) in the event of realisation of fine, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. With the following prayers: (i) To recall the arrest warrant against the petitioner for the execution of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.C.K.Sreejith, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saiji Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent State of Kerala. In the nature of the reliefs sought for granting this petition, notice to R-1 (complainant) stands dispensed with. It is submitted by Sri.C.K.Sreejith, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitoner could not deposit the fine amount within the time st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version