Davy V.Thattil vs Solaman V.C
2021 Latest Caselaw 4366 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.711 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 489/2012 DATED 12-03-2018 OF III
               ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1851/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                   OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR


REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:

             DAVY V.THATTIL
             AGED 70 YEARS,S/O. THATTIL PIDIYAN VARGHESE,
             PIDIYAN HOUSE, CHELAKKOTTUKARA DESOM,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 005.

             BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      SOLAMAN V.C
             AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN,
             VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, S.N PARK,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 006.

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

             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.711 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 and the 3 rd

accused jointly executed Ext.P3 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.711 OF 2018

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 revision petitioner, I am of the view

that the substantive sentence of simple

imprisonment for 1½ months awarded by the courts

below can be set aside, retaining the compensation

and the default sentence, to meet the ends of

justice. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this criminal revision petition

stands allowed in part as above. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.711 OF 2018

The revision petitioner is granted six months to

pay the compensation as requested by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/05.02.2021