Shaju Mathew.M vs K.R.Ramanan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3974 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.749 OF 2018

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 5041/2015 DATED 13-01-2017 OF
          JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALADY

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 52/2017 DATED 08-02-2018 OF
 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             SHAJU MATHEW.M
             AGED 45 YEARS, MELAPPILLY HOUSE,
             THIRUMUDIKKUNNU KORATTY EAST P.O,
             (PROPRIETOR, KRIPA OFFSET PRINT,
             NEAR CHETTUNGAL TOURIST HOME,
             ANGAMALY SOUTH).

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV
             SRI.V.P.JOLY

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

      1      K.R.RAMANAN
             S/O. RAMAN, KUNNEVELIYIL HOUSE,
             KANNIMANGALAM, NADUVATTAM P.O, 683 574.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     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.749 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.749 OF 2018

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 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 Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty

thousand 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 criminal revision petition stands

allowed in part as above.

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.749 OF 2018

The revision petitioner is granted ten months to

pay the fine/compensation as requested by the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

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/03.02.2021