K.P.Soman vs Sosamma Mathai
2021 Latest Caselaw 232 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.8 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1193/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                   OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 26/2015 DATED 18-08-2017 OF
 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, PATHANAMTHITTA


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             K.P.SOMAN
             PLAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             PODIYADI P.O, THIRUVALLA,
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
             SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
             SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
             SRI.T.H.VISHNU

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      SOSAMMA MATHAI
             VANCHIPALAM CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
             THIRUVAMBADI MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM,
             THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 102.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              KOCHI 682 031.

             R1 BY ADV. SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR
             R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
             R2 BY SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     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.8 OF 2018

                           -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 Exts.P1 and P1(a)

cheques 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

circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by Crl.Rev.Pet.No.8 OF 2018

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 Exts.P1 and P1(a) cheques, I am of

the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate

court can be modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy five 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 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. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.8 OF 2018

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 Nkr/05.01.2021.