Renu Kumar vs Krishnankutty
2021 Latest Caselaw 606 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                      Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 87/2014 DATED 25-06-2015 OF
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT), KOTTAYAM

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 124/2013 DATED 04-03-2014 OF
         JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS V, KOTTAYAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

                RENU KUMAR
                S/O.KUMARAN, KALAPPURATHATTEL,
                MARIYATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

                BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         KRISHNANKUTTY
                S/O.MATHU, T.K.HOUSE, PALLOMM KARA,
                NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

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

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RANJIT KOTTAYAM
                SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016

                              2




                      O R D E R

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').

2. Heard.

3. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence and concurrently found that

the revision petitioner executed Ext.P2 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016

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. As regards the sentence, the learned Counsel for

the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

including the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque, I am of

the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court

can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.3,90,000/-

(Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) with a default

clause for simple imprisonment for two months under

Section 138 of the Act, 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1522 OF 2016

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.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/07.01.2021