BEENA D Vs. SAJEEV KEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and passing of orders of conviction and sentence by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.236/2017 and Additional Court of Sessions V, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.246/2019. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case on hand.

(2.) Sri.P.V.Vinod, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged to admit the revision petition mainly on two grounds:

(3.) On a reading of the judgments assailed, this Court is convinced that the revision petitioner had admitted issuance of a signed cheque before the trial court. The position of law is now settled by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1) KHC 774 (SC)] that concurrent findings, evenif erroneous, are not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that those suffer on account of a jurisdictional error.