Hyrunnisa vs Sunil Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 810 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 78/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL
                    DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2957/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                     OF FIRST CLASS, VARKALA


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             HYRUNNISA
             W/O.BASHEER, THEKKUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
             MAITHANAM, VARKALA PO,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

             BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      SUNIL KUMAR
             S/O.SASEENDRAN, SREEHARI JYOTHISHALAYAM,
             AYANTHI, VARKALA FROM PRASANNA SADANAM,
             MEL-VETTOOR PO, VARKALA 695106

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, MANGALAPURAM,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM, 682031

             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 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. Service is complete. However, there is no

appearance for the first respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015

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.

5. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The

learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted

that the revision petitioner is a lady, presently aged 69

years. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

has further submitted that the revision petitioner is not

having any source of income at present. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, including the

submission of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I

am of the view that the sentence awarded by the

appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1050 OF 2015

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only)

with a default clause for simple imprisonment for three

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 criminal revision petition stands

allowed in part as above.

The revision petitioner is granted ten months to pay

the fine/compensation as requested by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/08.01.2021/STK