Kerala High Court
Shobhana vs The State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2021
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.1332 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 721/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 53/2015 DATED 11-08-2017 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SHOBHANA
W/O. OMANAKUTTAN,
NILAKKAL HOUSE,
KAVIYOOR P.O.,THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV. SMT.T.SUJA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SANTHAMMA K. G.
W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN,
PADINJAREKUTTU, KAVIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PIN-689645.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
BY SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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.1332 OF 2017
-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.1332 OF 2017
conviction passed by the courts below under Section
138 of the N.I.Act.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
has pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence. The
learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
that since the revision petitioner is a teacher working in
an aided school, if the fine exceeding Rs. 2000/- is
awarded, the revision petitioner will be dismissed from
the service. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner has also prayed for lifting the sentence of
imprisonment awarded by the appellate court.
5. The offence under which the conviction was
entered into, is the offence under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act. The Division Bench of this court in Saseendran
Nair v. General Manager [1996(2) KLT 482] held that
the question whether an offence would involve moral
turpitude or not has to be decided on the facts of each
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1332 OF 2017
case and all offences do not necessarily involve moral
turpitude.
6. The Division Bench of this court in K.S.R.T.C. v.
Abdul Latheef [2005(3) KLT 955] held that even if there
was conviction, under Rule 18 of Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960, it was
incumbent on the appointing authority to consider the
circumstances as to the misconduct which led to the
conviction and pass appropriate orders. It was further
held in K.S.R.T.C (supra) that every case of conviction
shall not result in dismissal.
7. The Division Bench in K.S.R.T.C (supra) further
held thus:-
"When the requirement in Section 138 of the N.I.
Act is satisfied, one will be deemed to have committed
offence. It is only a deeming provision. Offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act being an offence in the
commercial practice cannot be taken as one involving
moral turpitude, in the absence of any other cogent
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1332 OF 2017
material to discern moral turpitude."
8. In this case, no special circumstance has been
pointed out to show that there was moral turpitude.
Having gone through the facts and circumstance of this
case, I find that the offence found against the revision
petitioner in this case has no reflection on the moral
turpitude.
9. In view of the above, the apprehension
expressed by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner has no foundation. 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 appellate court can be modifed
and reduced to a fine of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakh
and fifty thousand only) and in default to 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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1332 OF 2017
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
shall be released to the complainant as part of the
compensation.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Nkr/07.01.2021
