Biju P.T vs Priyan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7328 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

 TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3060 OF 2011

CRA 918/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR

     CC 1550/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
                        KUNNAMKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              BIJU P.T.
              S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 34 YEARS, PALUVALAPPIL
              HOUSE, MUNDOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.C.A.CHACKO
              SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       PRIYAN, S/O.APPUNNI
              AYINIKKUNNATH HOUSE, PUTTEKKARA DESOM, ANJOOR
              VILLAGE, THRISSUR.680 53.

      2       THE STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, ERNAKULAM.31.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Case No. Crl.RP 3060/2011
                                  -2-


                             JUDGMENT

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. Service is complete. However, there is no

appearance for the first respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the 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 concurrent

finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or Case No. Crl.RP 3060/2011

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. The sentence awarded by the appellate court also

does not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands

dismissed.

However, the revision petitioner is granted three

months to pay the 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 dl/