V.T.Suseela vs K.Maheswari
2021 Latest Caselaw 2488 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.3375 OF 2009

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 567/2008 DATED 30-09-2009
    OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1021/2006 OF JUDICIAL
          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              V.T.SUSEELA,
              ANIL BHAVANAM,
              NEAR KOTTARAKAVU TEMPLE,
              MAVELIKKARA.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
              SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       K.MAHESWARI, W/o.M.N.RAMESH KUMAR,
              MAVELIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR SOUTH,
              PRESENTLY RESIDING AT G.S.VIHAR,
              WEST FORT, MAVELIKKARA).

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

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.L.JAYAWANTH
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY

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.3375 of 2009


                                      -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. 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 Crl.R.P.No.3375 of 2009

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.

4. 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

the sentence awarded by the courts below

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

modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh and Sixty

thousand only) with a default clause for Crl.R.P.No.3375 of 2009

simple imprisonment for two months, to meet

the ends of justice. It is ordered

accordingly. If the fine amount 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 six

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 Crl.R.P.No.3375 of 2009

shall be released to the complainant as

part of the compensation.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK