Shajan vs Mrs.Srikala Jayaraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 974 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

  MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.96 OF 2005

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 465/2003 DATED 09-09-2004
      OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 218/2000 OF JUDICIAL
         MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, THRISSUR


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              SHAJAN, S/o.JOSEPH,
              KIDANGAN HOUSE, KANATTUKARA DESOM,
              AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
              SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       MRS.SRIKALA JAYARAJ, W/o.JAYARAJ,
              THENNA VILLAGE, SURAT DISTRICT,
              GUJARATH STATE.

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

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.96 of 2005


                                    -2-




                                  ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the courts below under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (in 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 Exts.P1 to P3

cheques 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 Crl.R.P.No.96 of 2005

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

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 Exts.P1 to P3 cheques, I

am of the view that the sentence awarded by

the appellate court under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act can be modified and reduced to a

fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh

only) with a default clause for simple

imprisonment for three months, to meet the

ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. Crl.R.P.No.96 of 2005

If the fine amount is realized, 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 six

months to pay the fine/compensation as

requested by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK