Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (2) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder dated 10th February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No.3075/2011. 2. The appellant was convicted by the Judicial First Class MagistrateII, Ottappalam, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,45,000/to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide his order dated 30th March, 2010 passed in Summary Trial No.69/2008. In default of payment of compensation, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 15 days. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled before this Court, this Court may consider for waiver of the sentence relating to imprisonment." 5. Hearing of the case was accordingly deferred. The appellant has now produced a receipt dated 5th February, 2018 of having deposited sum of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees one lac) in the Trial Court in terms of our order dated 15th January, 2018. Office Report dated 8th February, 2018 indicates that respondent No.2 has been duly served. However, no appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent No.2 till date. 6. After considering the submissions and going through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant. ....