Kerala High Court
Vilayanikkal Shiju vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1413 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1861/2011 DATED 20-11-2012 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 186/2012 DATED 27-06-2014 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KALPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER/S/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VILAYANIKKAL SHIJU
S/O.PAILY, KAKKUNDY, MOONNANADU, PANDALLUR, NILGIRI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR
RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 SURESH KUMAR
S/O.ANANADHAN, MATTEMMAL HOUSE,
ODAPALLAM, KUPPADI, SULTHAN BATHERY.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
R1 BY ADV. SMT.REENA THOMAS
SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1413 OF 2014
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
N.I.Act by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1413 OF 2014
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am
of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts
below can be modified and reduced to a fine of
Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Thousand Only)
with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two
months under Section 138 of the 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)
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1413 OF 2014
(b) Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition
stands allowed in part as above.
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 any amount before the trial court
pursuant to the direction of this court, the said amount
shall be released to the complainant as part of the
compensation.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
RK/18.01.2021
