Kerala High Court
Vincent vs Manikutty on 11 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.231 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 200/2018 DATED 14-01-2019 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 72/2017 DATED 29-12-2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS III, IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VINCENT
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, PYNADATH HOUSE,
KORATTY EAST P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 308.
BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ANDN PLAINTIF/STATE:
1 MANIKUTTY
AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O.PUTHUKKAVU VEETTIL PRABHAKARAN @ KRISHNAN,
PRAMBRA P.O., KODAKARA VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 689.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.231 OF 2019
-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').
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 circumstances, the
concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.231 OF 2019
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.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand only) with a
default clause for simple imprisonment for one month,
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 six months to pay
the fine/compensation as requested by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.231 OF 2019
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/11.02.2021
