Kurian C.Oommen vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5578 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.270 OF 2012

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 101/2008 DATED 22-08-2009
             OF SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 85/2008 DATED 19-04-2008
     OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, RANNI


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              KURIAN C.OOMMEN,
              S/o OOMMEN,
              CHIRAYIL PADINJAREPARAMBIL HOUSE,
              KUTTAPPUZHA P.O & VILLAGE,
              THIRUVALLA TALUK,
              PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.V.SETHUNATH
              SRI.V.VINAY

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PYBLIC
              PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

      2       RAJA RAJAVARMA , S/o.UDAYAVARMA, ROMEX PAPER
              MART, MELATHANALY, PALACE ROAD, PALIAKKARA,
              THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
              PIN-686 545.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

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.R.P.No.270 of 2012


                                     -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.270 of 2012

or the concurrent finding of conviction by

the courts below was perverse or incorrect.

In the said circumstances, the concurrent

finding of conviction under Section 138 of

the N.I.Act by the courts below 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 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 Crl.R.P.No.270 of 2012

any amount before the trial court pursuant

to the direction of this Court, the said

amount shall be released to the complainant.

sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK Crl.R.P.No.270 of 2012

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY Dr.P.S.VENUGOPAL PLACHERIL