Kerala High Court
C.Rajeevan vs Thalayantakath Musthafa on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1711 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 637/2011 DATED 28-05-2018 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 7271/2009 DATED 18-08-2011 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE),KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
C.RAJEEVAN
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY P.O., KALLYASSERI AMSOM,
KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.JOSE ANTONY
SRI.S.SHIV SHANKAR
RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 THALAYANTAKATH MUSTHAFA
S/O.ABOOBACKER, KOLMOTTA, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O.,
ANDOOR AMSOM, KANNUR, PIN-670563.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1711 OF 2018
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 Section 138 of the
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1711 OF 2018
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.
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.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Three
Thousand Only) with a default clause for simple
imprisonment for two months under Section 138 of
the Act, 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.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1711 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.
SD/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
RK/12.03.2021
