Jayasree vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6260 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
            FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                            CRL.REV.PET NO. 640 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.012.2018 IN ST No. 17/2017 OF JUDICIAL
                 FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE      COURT-II, CHENGANNUR
 JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.5/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
                               COURT-III, MAVELIKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

                JAYASREE,
                AGED 47 YEARS,
                W/O. BIJU, VAISHNAVAM, ERAVANKARA P.O.,
                MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
                PIN-690108.

                BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED
                        SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
                        SRI.E.G.GORDEN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

       1        STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
       2        GEETHA UNNIKRISHNAN,
                W/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, U.K. BHAVANAM,
                VENMONY PADINAJTTU-MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR,
                ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689121.

                R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJITH GEORGE
                R2 BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
                           SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
                           SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR




THIS       CRIMINAL    REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.640 of 2020

                                   2




                               ORDER

Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022

This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of

the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act')

and orders of conviction and sentence passed consequently by

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur (for short 'the

trial Court') and Additional Court of Sessions-III, Mavelikkara (for

short 'the appellate court') respectively in ST No.17/2017 and

Criminal Appeal No.05/2019.

2. The trial court has found the revision petitioner guilty of

the offence and convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.7,00,000/-

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

The court has also directed that the fine amount on realisation

shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section

357 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the

Cr.P.C.). The judgment of the trial court is assailed before the Crl.R.P.No.640 of 2020

appellate court. It has allowed the appeal in part and modified the

substantive sentence imposed to imprisonment till rising of the

court and the default sentence, by enhancing it to three months.

The direction to pay fine amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was

maintained.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not

argue on merits. According to him some leniency may be shown in

the matter of default sentence by reducing it. This Court has

noticed that though the trial court has imposed only two months'

imprisonment as default sentence, the appellate court has

enhanced it to three months without assigning any reasons.

In the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed in

part and the default sentence imposed for a period of three

months is modified and reduced to two months.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL