Radhakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3933 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                  Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2181 OF 2012(C)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 330/2010 DATED 20-06-2012 OF II
                ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 199/2009 DATED 30-04-2010 OF
         JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
             S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, K.B.VILASOM,
             THEVANNOOR P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE,
             KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

             BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2      SATHEESH BABU N.
             S/O.NEELAMBARAN, KIZHAKKALAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
             MALOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689695.

             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
             R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2181 OF 2012(C)

                             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.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 under Section 138 of the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2181 OF 2012(C)

N.I.Act 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.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, including the submission of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the

sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified

and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Only) with a default clause for simple

imprisonment for one month under Section 138 of the

Act, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered

accordingly. If the fine is realised, the entire amount Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2181 OF 2012(C)

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 RK/03.02.2021 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2181 OF 2012(C)