Bindhu Aravind vs Podiyamma Raghavan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8115 Ker

           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.1424 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 102/2018 DATED 04-10-2019
   OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
                      PATHANAMTHITTA

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 143/2016 DATED 31-10-2018
       OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             BINDHU ARAVIND
             AGED 47 YEARS
             KEELATHU VADAKKEKARA HOUSE,
             MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM P. O.,
             KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
             SRI.R.RENJITH

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     1       PODIYAMMA RAGHAVAN
             AGED 73 YEARS
             W/O. RAGHAVAN, OLICKAL PUTHENVEEDU,
             ANACHARIKKAL, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM P. O.,
             KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 666.

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

             R1 BY ADV. KUM.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN
             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     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.1424 OF 2019

                              -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.1424 OF 2019

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.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only)

with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one

month, 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 ten months to pay

the fine/compensation as requested by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1424 OF 2019

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