K.H.Latheef vs State Represented By The Public ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2483 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

  THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1284 OF 2012

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 709/2010 DATED 29-07-2011
    OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 406/2004 DATED 06-11-2010
  OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O), ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              K.H.LATHEEF, AGED 48 YEARS,
              CONTRACTOR, HOUSE NO.3/59,
              FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.

              BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI

RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2       THARIAN JOHN,
              AGED 42 YEARS,
              MATTAMEL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O,
              ERNAKULAM-682024.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.1284 of 2012


                                      -2-




                                  ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the courts below under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

2. Service is complete. However,

there is no appearance for the second

respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for

revision petitioner and the learned Senior

Public Prosecutor.

4. The courts below correctly

appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence and concurrently found that the

revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque Crl.R.P.No.1284 of 2012

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 the courts below

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not

warrant any interference by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, including the

amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and the

submission of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, I am of the view that Crl.R.P.No.1284 of 2012

the sentence awarded by the appellate court

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can be

modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.1,41,000/- (Rupees One lakh and Forty

one 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 realized, 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 ten

months to pay the fine/compensation as

requested by the learned counsel for the Crl.R.P.No.1284 of 2012

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 STK