Kerala High Court
Bindhu vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 504 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.150/2018 DATED 05.02.2020
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-VI, KOLLAM FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM IN ST
NO.1453/2015 DATED 29.11.2018.
PETITIONER (APPELLANT-ACCUSED)
BINDHU, AGED 49,
D/O. SATHYADASAN, MALAVIKA LABORATORY,
C.K.P. JUNCTION, KADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O,
KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI. HARISH GOPINATH
SMT. ARYA UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS-STATE & COMPLAINANT)
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SMT.SHEELA L,
W/O. HARIDASAN, RESIDING AT HARIDASA MANDIRAM,
KADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O, KOLLAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No. 504 of 2021
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021
This revision is filed against concurrent findings of guilt and
orders of conviction and sentence passed against the revision
petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Kollam in S.T.No.1453/2015 as well as the Additional
District and Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam in Crl.Appeal
No.150/2018.
2. While hearing on admission, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner has urged that the revision is only to be
admitted. This Court finds in view of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 SC] that only when a jurisdictional
error is pointed out, the concurrent findings of court below,
even if erroneous can be interfered with by a court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. A jurisdictional error is not pointed out by
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Therefore, the
revision is not liable to be admitted.
Crl.R.P. No. 504 of 2021
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel, the prevalent
pandemic has restrained the revision petitioner from depositing
the compensation amount as directed by the judgments assailed.
According to him he is prepared to deposit the compensation
amount and get the offence under Section 138 compounded if
sometime is granted by this Court.
4. This Court noticed from the judgments assailed in the
revision that the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of
Rs.70,000/- under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In case of any default in payment of compensation,
the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one more month. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to modify the substantive sentence of one month to
simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to show
indulgence in the matter by granting time for making the deposit
of compensation amount.
5. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of with a
direction to the revision petitioner to surrender before the Chief
Crl.R.P. No. 504 of 2021
Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam on 04.10.2021 and serve the
sentence till rising of the court. On such surrender and serving
of sentence, the court below shall keep all coercive steps initiated
to procure her presence in abeyance for one month from that day
to enable her to deposit Rs.70,000/-, the compensation payable
by the judgments assailed. On such a deposit being made, the
2nd respondent shall be issued with notice so that she could get it
released in her favour. In case of default in depositing
Rs.70,000/- on or before 03.11.2021, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court shall proceed to execute the default sentence
forthwith.
Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE
MJL
