Bindhu.C vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 7666 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.501 OF 2018

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 52/2011 DATED 30-11-2011
      OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST
                     OFFENCES),MANJERI

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 433/2011 DATED 30-12-2015
   OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
                          MANJERI


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             BINDHU.C.
             D/O.PAVITHRAN, CHAKKALAKAL HOUSE,
             THRIKKALAYOOR, KEEZHUPARAMBA P.O.,
             ARECODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
             SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT (LEGAL HEIR OF COMPLAINANT) &
STATE:

     1       ZUHRABI
             AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.MEERAN MOIDEEN,
             MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, PUTHALAM, ARECODE P.O.
             PIN-679 639, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

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

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
             R2 BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     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.501 OF 2018
                             -2-


                       ORDER

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 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.501 OF 2018

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 can be modified and reduced to a

fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand

only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for

two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered

accordingly. If the fine is realised, 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.

However, the revision petitioner is granted ten

months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by

the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.501 OF 2018

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 Nkr/04.03.2021