Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs A.Thomas (Died) on 21 January, 2021
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.684 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 110/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 109/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, ADOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MOHANAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
SREEDEVI SADANAM,ERURAVANANGATTU MURI,,
PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SRI.SAJJU.S
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 A.THOMAS (DIED)
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.VALLIYATHU HOUSE,
ARUKALICKAL KIZHAKKU MURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE,
MANAGING PARTNER, ROCKFORT ENTERPRISES OF,
SKINNERPURAM ESTATE, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ADDL MOLLY THOMAS, AGED 81 YEARS
R3 W/O A.THOMAS, VALYATHU HOUSE, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ADDL DILEEP T ABRAHAM
R4 S/O A.THOMAS (LATE) VALYATHU HOUSE,
EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ADDL SATHEESH T MATHEW
R5 S/O A.THOMAS (LATE), VALYATHU HOUSE,
EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
(ADDL..RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF
DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/2018 IN
CRL.MA.01/2018)
R1 BY ADV. C UNNIKRISHNAN
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.Rev.Pet.No.684 OF 2011
-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 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
perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the
concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.684 OF 2011
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, I
am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts
below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till
the rising of the court and a compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the
complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with a default
clause for simple imprisonment for two months, to meet
the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.
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.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.684 OF 2011
I make it clear that since the first respondent, who
is the complainant, is no more, respondent Nos.3 to 5
are entitled to the compensation.
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 respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Nkr/21.01.2021
