Rajesh Kumar vs Canara Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 7665 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.1209 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 157/2015 DATED 31-03-2018
    OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
                    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 93/2012 DATED 05-05-2015
  OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, NEDUMANGAD

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              RAJESH KUMAR,
              S/O DINESHAN UNNI, ANIL SADANAM,
              MARUTHUMOODU, MANNOORKONAM P.O.,NEDUMANGAD,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
              SRI.RAHUL RAJ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       CANARA BANK,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
              PARANDODE BRANCH, NEDUMANGAD,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
              PIN-695542

      2       STATE OF KERALA,
              REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

              R1 BY ADV. SMT.THANKOM.G
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN

OTHER PRESENT:

              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.R.P.No.1209 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.1209 of 2018

or the concurrent finding of conviction by

the courts below was perverse or incorrect.

In the said circumstances, I find no reason

to interfere with the concurrent finding of

conviction passed by the court below under

Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

4. The learned counsel for the

revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency

in the matter of sentence. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, I am

of the view that the substantive sentence of

imprisonment for one year awarded by the

courts below can be set aside, retaining

the fine and compensation, to meet the ends

of justice. It is ordered accordingly. Crl.R.P.No.1209 of 2018

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.

            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.

I make it clear that the payment towards

the revenue recovery/the execution of the

decree, if any, in respect of the liability Crl.R.P.No.1209 of 2018

covered by Ext.P1 cheque will wipe off the

penal liability to pay compensation as per

the sentence awarded by this Court to the

extent of the quantum of such payment.

sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK