Kerala High Court
Biju Paramu vs Accamma 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.393 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1120/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 138/2016 DATED 20-12-2017 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BIJU PARAMU
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PARAMU,
PALLIYUDE KIZHAKKETHIL, S.R.P.MARKET P.O.,
SOUTH EAST, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI
SRI.R.RAJENDRA PRASAD
RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 ACCAMMA
B.S.N.L. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RESIDING AT THOTTUNGAL
HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686503.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
SMT.M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
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.393 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.393 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the submission of the learned
Counsel for the revision petitioner, I am of the view
that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can
be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh 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)(b) Cr.P.C.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.393 OF 2018
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/19.01.2021
