Kerala High Court
George Varghese vs T.K.Alexander on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3138 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 958/2006 DATED 05-07-2008 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 322/2006 DATED 02-09-2006 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -VI, TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
GEORGE VARGHESE
S/O.K.V.GEORGE, HONEY COTTAGE,
OPP.TELE COMMUNICATION COMPLEX,
NALANCHIRA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 T.K.ALEXANDER
T.C.5/1854, NADAKAVU LANE,
AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA
SMT.M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3138 OF 2008
-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"), 1881.
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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3138 OF 2008
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. 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.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand
only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for
two months, 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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3138 OF 2008
learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
I make it clear that the payment towards the
execution of the decree, if any, in the civil suit in
respect of Ext.P1 cheque will wipe off the penal
liability to pay the fine as per the sentence awarded by
this Court to the extent of the quantum of such
payment.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Nkr/19.01.2021
