Siddique vs Jayandrathan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1848 Ker

             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.2147 OF 2010

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 85/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                     COURT(ADHOC 2), THRISSUR

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 358/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                   OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             SIDDIQUE
             S/O MAMMATH, MARATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMMANNOOR
             DESOM,, ARTHAT VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT.

             BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

      1      JAYANDRATHAN
             VATTERINGAL HOUSE, PORKKALENGAD DESOM, KANIPPAYYUR
             VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680
             517.

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

      ADDL.3 RADHA
             AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O JAYANDRATHAN @ JAYAN,
             VATTERINGAL HOUSE, PORKKALENGAD DESOM, PORKKALENGAD
             PO, KANIPAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT-680517.

      ADDL.4 AJAYAKUMAR
             AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O JAYANDRATHAN @ JAYAN,
             VATTERINGAL HOUSE, PORKKALENGAD DESOM, PORKKALENGAD
             PO, KANIPAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT-680517.

      ADDL.5 SAJINI
             AGED 40 ABOUT YEARS, D/O JAYANDRATHAN @ JAYAN,
             VATTERINGAL HOUSE, PORKKALENGAD DESOM, PORKKALENGAD
             PO, KANIPAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT-680517.
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2147 OF 2010

                              2

     ADDL. REJEESH
     6     AGED 37 ABOUT YEARS, S/O JAYANDRATHAN @ JAYAN,
           VATTERINGAL HOUSE, PORKKALENGAD DESOM,
           PORKKALENGAD PO, KANIPAYYUR VILLAGE,
           THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680517.
           (ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3,4,5 AND 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS
           PER ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 IN
           CRL.M.A.NO.1946/2018 IN CRL.R.P.NO.2147/2010)

           R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
           R3, R5-6 BY ADV. RAJIT
           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.2147 OF 2010

                              3




                       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

the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2147 OF 2010

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 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 in

connection with this case, the said amount shall be

released to the complainant as part of the compensation.

Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/18.01.2021