IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.415 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 265/2016 DATED 28-02-2018 OF
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 96/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -III, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
DAYANA
W/O PRAVEEN,
RAJEEV BHAVAN, KAVARA,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 SYAMLAL
S/O.SASIDHARAN, BANGLOWIL VEEDU,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695607.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 BY ADV. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
R1 BY ADV. S.VIBHEESHANAN
R1 BY ADV. K.SUDHINKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. S.K.ADHITHYAN
R1 BY ADV. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
R2 BY SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.415 OF 2018
-2-
ORDER
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"), 1881.
2. Heard.
3. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence 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. 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.415 OF 2018 -3- under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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 a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.415 OF 2018 -4- Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said amount shall be released to the complainant as part of the compensation.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Nkr/05.01.2021 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.415 OF 2018 -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL