Ananthakrishnan vs Sahadevan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1545 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                  Crl.Rev.Pet.No.691 OF 2018

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 4323/2012 OF JUDICIAL
            MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 245/2015 OF ADDITIONAL
      DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, PALAKKAD


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             ANANTHAKRISHNAN
             AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. KANDAYI,
             KARIMKULAM, ELAVANCHERRY,
             CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

             BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

     1       SAHADEVAN
             AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MALLIKUTTY,
             KUNDANKULAMBU, MUTHALAMADA,
             CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101.

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

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
             R2 BY SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.691 OF 2018

                             -2-




                       ORDER

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 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.691 OF 2018

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 eight

months to pay the 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 as

directed by this Court, the said amount shall be released

to the complainant as part of the compensation.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/14.01.2021