Gopalakrishnan @ Babu vs Mohanan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7599 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1060 OF 2011

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 578/2009 OF I ADDITIONAL
                     SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 67/2008 DATED 26-08-2009 OF
       JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, OTTAPPALAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             GOPALAKRISHNAN @ BABU
             S/O KESAVAN, PUTHAN VEETTIL, THENAKAR AMSOM AND
             DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

             BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1      MOHANAN
             S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,
             CHIRATTAKULATHIL HOUSE,
             EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM,
             OTTAPALAM TALUK.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1060 OF 2011

                              2




                      O R D E R

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. 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 under Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1060 OF 2011

Section 138 of the N.I.Act 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. 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 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1060 OF 2011

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 RK/04.03.2021