Smithesh.K vs M/S.Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 430 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                       Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 332/2012 DATED 30-04-2013 OF
       JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 56/2013 DATED 31-12-2014 OF
    ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KALPETTA

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             SMITHESH.K.
             AGED 36 YEARS,
             S/O.KARAYI RAJAN, KARAYI HOUSE, KUPPADI POST,
             KARAKKANDY, OPP.SAGAR THEATRE, SULTHANBATHERY,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
             SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.(P) LTD.
             KIZHAKEBAGATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, S.BATHERY POST,
             VILLAGE & TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
             REPRESENTATIVE SUNIL K.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 43
             YEARS, KANDAMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, MYLAMBADI POST,
             PURAKKADI, APATT, SULTHANBATHERY,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN -673 591.

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

             R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.K.S.BABU
             R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.BABU SHANKAR
             R1   BY   ADV.   SMT.N.SUDHA
             R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.K.V.WINSTON
             R2   BY   SMT.   M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

                              -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, I find

no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

conviction passed by the courts below under Section

138 of the N.I.Act.

4. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The

revision petitioner produced two receipts before this

Court. One receipt would show that an amount of

Rs.7,000/- was paid by the revision petitioner on

03.02.2011. The said amount was already shown in

Ext.P8 statement on 26.02.2011. Therefore, the said

receipt has no relevancy at all. Another receipt is dated

25.03.2013. As per the said receipt, the revision

petitioner paid Rs.1,000/-. As per Ext.P1 receipt, the

revision petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.16,000/-.

Thus, the revision petitioner had totally paid an amount

of Rs.17,000/-, after the filing of the case. Considering

the facts and circumstances of the case, including the

amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and also the amount Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

paid by the revision petitioner after filing the complaint,

I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the

appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.39,000/- (Rupees thirty nine 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 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.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

shall be released to the complainant as part of the

compensation.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/06.01.2021.

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1276 OF 2015

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 ORIGINAL RECEIPT DATED 3.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RS.7,000/-

ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL RECEIPT DATED 25.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RS.1,000/-

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL