IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 87/2014 DATED 25-06-2015 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT), KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 124/2013 DATED 04-03-2014 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS V, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RENU KUMAR
S/O.KUMARAN, KALAPPURATHATTEL,
MARIYATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KRISHNANKUTTY
S/O.MATHU, T.K.HOUSE, PALLOMM KARA,
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RANJIT KOTTAYAM
SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016
2
O R D E R
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. Heard.
3. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016 3 perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.
4. As regards the sentence, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months under Section 138 of the Act, 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016 4 under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/07.01.2021