V.C. AJEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

(2.) The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under section 138 of the N.I. Act and committed the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the revision petitioner had been already dismissed from the service and in the said circumstances, he will not be reinstated in service if the sentence of fine exceeds Rs. 2000/-.