K. Salim vs S.S.Ramesh Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1345 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.942 OF 2007

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 88/2003 DATED 31-12-2005
  OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 372/2001 DATED 21-02-2003
        OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              K. SALIM S/O P.K KRISHNAN,
              PALAKKAL HOUSE, UTHOMOODU(P.O.),
              PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
              SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
              SRI.A.S.SABU

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       S.S.RAMESH MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              PRANATHMAKA CONSTRUCTIONS,
              PATHANAMTHITTA.

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

              R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2007


                                     -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.942 of 2007

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. The

sentence awarded by the courts below also

does not warrant any interference by this

Court.

In the result, this Criminal Revision

Petition stands dismissed. However, the

revision petitioner is granted four months

to pay the fine/compensation as requested by

the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner.

Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2007

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 payment of the compensation.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK