Thulaseedharan vs Prasanna
2021 Latest Caselaw 7330 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.155 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 198/2016 DATED 11-12-2017
        OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 10/2014 DATED 23-07-2016
  OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, NEDUMANGAD


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              THULASEEDHARAN,
              S/o. DHAMODHARAN, ATHIRA, PLAVARA,
              NANNIYODE, PACHA P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

              BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       PRASANNA,
              W/O. V.P JYOTHEENDRA KUMAR, JYOTHIS,
              PAZHAKUTTY P.O,NEDUMANGAD,
              NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

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

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE
              VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

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:
 Crl.R.P.No.155 of 2018


                                     -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 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 Crl.R.P.No.155 of 2018

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 Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the

view that the sentence awarded by the courts

below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can

be modified and reduced to a fine of

Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh Ninety

thousand only) with a default clause for

simple imprisonment for two months, to meet Crl.R.P.No.155 of 2018

the ends of justice. It is ordered

accordingly. If the fine 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.

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 Crl.R.P.No.155 of 2018

amount shall be released to the complainant

as part of the compensation.

sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK