Partly allowed

Deepa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021Crl.Rev.Pet/1480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala revised a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Found no perversity in evidence appreciation. Modified sentence to a fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs with default imprisonment clause, payable within six months as compensation to complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to fine of Rs. 2,50,000 with default clause for imprisonment of two months; six months to pay.

Deepa Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 89/2017 DATED 02-08-2018 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 818/2009 DATED 12-04-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017/ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.818/2009:

¶9

DEEPA,AGED 36 YEARS

¶10

W/O.SARATHCHANDRAKUMAR, MOONAMPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, GANDHJI NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017 RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRL.A.NO.89/2017/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.818/2009:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2 JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KURUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR-209, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691021.

¶15

ADDL.PADMAKUMARI, AGED 58 YEARS

¶16

R3 W/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLAI,KARUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR 209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021.

¶17

ADDL RAHUL. J, AGED 35 YEARS

¶18

R4. S/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLA, KARUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR 209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021.

¶19

ADDL.BABY PRIYANKA, AGED 30 YEARS

¶20

R5. D/O LATE JANARDHANAN PILLA,KARUVELIL, SNEHA NAGAR 209, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021. (ARE IMPEADED AS ADDL.R3 TO R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.12.2019 IN CRL.M.A.2/2019)

¶21

R1 SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA,SR.PP R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018

¶24

-2-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The revision petitioner was convicted and

¶27

sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018

¶32

-3-

¶33

interference by this Court.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶35

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.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months, 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.

¶36

In the result, this criminal revision petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶37

The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶38

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1480 OF 2018

¶39

-4-

¶40

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.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Nkr/09.03.2021

Deepa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harsha Kumar Vs Sree Guhanandapuram Devasom

Rahim Kutty Vs the Divisional Manager, New India Assur

Kalathingal N.D.Usha Vs Neervarath Jwalini Avva

C.Rajeevan Vs Thalayantakath Musthafa

Sushama Narayanan Namboothiri Vs Abraham Kurian

Najkabi Vs Puthan Peediakakkal Muhammedali Haji