Baby Joseph vs Sudhan P.I
2021 Latest Caselaw 6150 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

  FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1663 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 182/2017 DATED 13-11-2018
        OF IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 3132/2013 DATED 04-11-2017
      OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADIMALI


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              BABY JOSEPH,
              AGED 58 YEARS,
              S/O. JOSEPH , ANCHERIYIL HOUSE,
              DEVIYAR COLONY BHAGOM VALARA KARA,
              MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
              IDUKKI DISTRICT

              BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       SUDHAN P.I.,
              S/O. AYYAPPAN, KARUKATHARA HOUSE,
              POONJAR KANDOM KARA,
              MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
              IDUKKI DISTRICT

      2       STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

              R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.1663 of 2018


                                       -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.1663 of 2018

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

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 and the

submission at the Bar, I am of the view that

the sentence awarded by the appellate court

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can be

modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with a

default clause for simple imprisonment for Crl.R.P.No.1663 of 2018

two months, to meet the ends of justice. It

is ordered accordingly. If the fine is

realized, 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.

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 Crl.R.P.No.1663 of 2018

amount shall be released to the complainant

as part of the compensation.

sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK