K.K.Pankajavalli vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5554 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1532 OF 2009

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 271/2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
                    COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 9971/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
               OF FIRST CLASS -II, PARAPPANANGADI


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             K.K.PANKAJAVALLI
             D/O APPUKUTTAN @ KONTHUNNI PANICKER,
             'AISWARYA',THENHIPALAM AMSOM,, TIRURANGADI TALUK.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM.

      2      A.M.LALITHA
             D/O. CHAKKU
             ADIKARIMANAMMAL, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,
             TIRURANGADI TALUK.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1532 OF 2009

                              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.1532 OF 2009

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.

The courts below awarded a sentence of imprisonment till

the rising of the court and a compensation of Rs.60,000/-

to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C with a

default clause for simple imprisonment for three months.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, I am of the view that the imprisonment till the

rising of the court 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1532 OF 2009

stands allowed in part as above.

The revision petitioner is granted six months to

pay the fine as requested by the learned Counsel for

the revision petitioner.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/16.02.2021