Johny Mathew vs M/S.Malanadu Ammonia Pvt. Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 32322 Ker

Kerala High Court

Johny Mathew vs M/S.Malanadu Ammonia Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024

                                    1
CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2014




                                                        2024:KER:83466

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

   FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2014

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2013 IN CRA NO.194 OF

2013 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA AND THE

JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN ST NO.159 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

             JOHNY MATHEW,PROPRIETOR, MATHAI AND COMPANY,
             KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PALA 686573

             BY ADV SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       M/S.MALANADU AMMONIA PVT. LTD.
             REGD OFFICE PUTHUPARAMBIL, VAZHAMUTTOM EAST P.O,
             PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
             MR. SREEDATH P.N

     2       THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.MADHU
             SRI.ROY THOMAS PATHANAMTHITTA
             SRI.SANAL P.RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     THIS     CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    2
CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2014




                                                          2024:KER:83466

                              ORDER

The revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding

of conviction and consequent sentence imposed under Sec.138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner - accused in

ST No.159 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Pathanamthitta and in Crl.A No.194 of 2013 on the file of

the Court of Sessions, Pathanamthitta. As per the impugned

judgment dated 31.7.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, the

revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a compensation of

Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation, to

undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. While

confirming the conviction, the said substantive sentence imposed by

the learned Magistrate was modified by the learned Sessions Judge

as per the judgment dated 2.12.2013 by directing the petitioner -

accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court. The

compensation portion of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court

was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge.

CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2014

2024:KER:83466

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the

learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

3. During hearing no material has been brought to the

notice of this Court which indicates that the appreciation of evidence

or the concurrent findings of conviction and consequent sentence

passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge

were perverse or incorrect. On going through the records, I find no

circumstance to say that the judgments impugned suffer from

incorrectness, illegality or impropriety. In the said circumstances,

the concurrent findings of conviction entered by the learned

Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant

any interference by this Court.

4. A proper sentence was also awarded by the learned

Sessions Judge and hence no interference is needed to the sentence

also.

5. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.

However, considering the submissions at the Bar, the revision

petitioner is granted ten months' time to pay the compensation

amount.

CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2014

2024:KER:83466

Needless to state that if the petitioner had deposited any

amount before the Trial Court pursuant to the direction of this Court,

the said amount will be treated as part payment of the

compensation.

sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S, JUDGE

sks/8.11.2024