The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition partly, holding the conviction correct but modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,43,000 with default imprisonment, directing the fine be released as compensation.
Sentence modified to fine of Rs. 2,43,000 with default clause for simple imprisonment for two months; time granted to pay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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').
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
3
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.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1711 OF 2018
4
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
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act warrants interference.
Whether the sentence awarded by the appellate court warrants modification.
Whether compensation can be released from the fine amount deposited.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Rajeevan
Thalayantakath Musthafa
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
