Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs C.R.Chandrakanth on 13 January, 2021
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.654 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 74/2015 DATED 25-09-2017 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 90/2013 DATED 25-03-2015 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 46, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, GOKULAM, MANAPALLY SOUTH,
SRP MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA VILLAGE HAILING FROM
KALLELIL VEEDU, CLAPPNA NORTH, CLAPPNA VILLAGE,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:
1 C.R.CHANDRAKANTH
AGED 42, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, REMYA BHAVANATHU,
PULIYOORVACHI SOUTH, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM-690544.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 682031.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.BHANU THILAK
R1 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU JAMES
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.PRASANTH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
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.Rev.Pet.No.654 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 Section 138 of the
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.654 OF 2018
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.
4. As regards the sentence, the learned Counsel for
the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The
learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is not having any business at present
and hence he is not having any source of income.
5. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the submission of
the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the
amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view
that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.654 OF 2018
be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.5,25,000/-
(Rupees Five lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a
default clause for simple imprisonment for two months
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, to meet the ends of
justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realised,
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 amount
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.654 OF 2018
shall be released to the complainant as part of the
compensation.
SD/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
RK/13.01.2021
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
