IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 78/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2957/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, VARKALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
HYRUNNISA
W/O.BASHEER, THEKKUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
MAITHANAM, VARKALA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 SUNIL KUMAR
S/O.SASEENDRAN, SREEHARI JYOTHISHALAYAM,
AYANTHI, VARKALA FROM PRASANNA SADANAM,
MEL-VETTOOR PO, VARKALA 695106
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, MANGALAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM, 682031
SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015
-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. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the first respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015 -3- 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 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is a lady, presently aged 69 years. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has further submitted that the revision petitioner is not having any source of income at present. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015 -4- Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for three 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 criminal 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.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Nkr/08.01.2021/STK