Abdul Khadher vs Joseph Mathew
2021 Latest Caselaw 5557 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.790 OF 2018

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 70/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                           COURT, PALA

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1301/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                     OF FIRST CLASS II, PALA


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             ABDUL KHADHER
             AGED 54 YEARS,S/O ALIPILLA RAWTHER,ALIPILLA
             HOUSE,VETTIPURAM,KOZHENCHERY,PATHANAMTHITTA.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
             SRI.R.RENJITH

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      JOSEPH MATHEW
             S/O MATHEW MANAKATTU(H),LALAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686575.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

             R1 BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA
             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:

OTHER PRESENT:

             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.790 OF 2018

                             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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.790 OF 2018

Section 138 of the 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 sentence awarded by

the appellate court also does not warrant any

interference by this Court.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition

stands dismissed.

However, 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.790 OF 2018

court pursuant to the direction of this court, the said

amount shall be released to the complainant as part of

the compensation.

I make it clear that the payment towards the

execution of the decree, if any, in the civil suit in

respect of Ext.P1 cheque will wipe off the penal

liability to pay the fine as per the sentence awarded

by the appellate court to the extent of the quantum of

such payment.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/16.02.2021