Biju P.K vs Kamalakshiamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 4180 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.512 OF 2019

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 78/2016 DATED 22-01-2019
        OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 63/2015 OF JUDICIAL
       MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, CHENGANACHERRY


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              BIJU P.K.,
              AGED 44 YEARS,
              S/O.IRAVIKUTTAN, PADIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
              KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,
              KOTTAYAM, PIN - 688 104.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM)
              SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       KAMALAKSHIAMMA,
              AGED 65 YEARS, R.K.NIWAS,
              KOTTAMURY P.O.,
              PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY,
              KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 105.

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

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA)

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2019


                                     -2-




                                   ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the courts below under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (in 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 Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2019

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

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 and the

submission of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, I am of the view that

the sentence awarded by the appellate court

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act 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 Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2019

two months, to meet the ends of justice. It

is ordered accordingly. If the fine is

realized, 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 six

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 Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2019

part of the compensation.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK