Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Adv. Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan ... on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/18TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 89/2017 DATED 02-08-2018 OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 818/2009 DATED 12-04-2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017/ACCUSED
IN C.C.NO.818/2009:
DEEPA,AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.SARATHCHANDRAKUMAR, MOONAMPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU,
GANDHJI NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017 RESPONDENT
NO.2 IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.818/2009:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KURUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR-209,
AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691021.
ADDL. PADMAKUMARI, AGED 58 YEARS
R3 W/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLAI,KARUVELIL,
SNEHA NAGAR 209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021.
ADDL RAHUL. J, AGED 35 YEARS
R4. S/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLA, KARUVELIL,
SNEHA NAGAR 209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021.
ADDL. BABY PRIYANKA, AGED 30 YEARS
R5. D/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLA,KARUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR
209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021.
(ARE IMPEADED AS ADDL.R3 TO R5 AS PER ORDER DATED
10.12.2019 IN CRL.M.A.2/2019)
R1 SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA,SR.PP
R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 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 not warrant any
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018
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
appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty 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.
The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay
the fine/compensation as requested by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 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/09.03.2021
