George Abraham vs Elias
2021 Latest Caselaw 230 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.416 OF 2018

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 52/2013 DATED 27-10-2016 OF
       JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THAMARASSERY

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 479/2016 DATED 14-12-2017 OF
    ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOZHIKODE


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             GEORGE ABRAHAM
             AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, PULIPRA HOUSE, PUDUAPPADY
             POST, 673 586, PUDUPPADY VILLAGE AND DESOM,
             THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE.

             BY ADVS.
             SMT.S.KARTHIKA
             SRI.M.R.ANISON

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      ELIAS
             AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. IYPE, OLIKKAKUZHIYIL
             HOUSE,PUDUPPADY POST - 673 586, PUDUPPADY VILLAGE AND
             DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
             R1 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU BABU
             SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.416 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 by the courts below was Crl.Rev.Pet.No.416 OF 2018

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. 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 appellate court can be

modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,25,000/-

(Rupees One lakh Twenty Five 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)(b) Cr.P.C. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.416 OF 2018

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition

stands allowed in part as above.

The revision petitioner is granted six 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

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/05.01.2021