Indulal @ Lal v. Avirachan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/8TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3047 of 2009 ( ) --------------------------------- JUDGMENT IN Crl.A 336/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, PALAKKAD DATED 29-04-2009 JUDGMENT IN CC 1143/2004 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR DATED 27-04-2006 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

---------------------------------------- INDULAL @ LAL,S/O.VIDYADHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, VRINDAVANAM, ANCHAL P.O.

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

------------------------------------------

1. AVIRACHAN, S/O.MATHEW, VETTATH HOUSE, KARIMKAYAM P.O., MANGALAM DAM PALAKKAD.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PALAKKAD.

R,R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2015

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.1143 of 2004 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur.

2.

The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him thereunder to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of 2,31,000/- to the ₹ complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of 2,31,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved ₹ by the said conviction and sentence, this revision petition has been filed.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.

The prosecution allegation is that towards the

-2discharge of the liability, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to the insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the revision petitioner, which was received by the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount within the statutory period or thereafter.

5.

Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. 6.

The courts below, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant, concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The defence set up by the revision petitioner was also repelled by the courts below. Since there is concurrent finding on facts,

-3this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same, unless the finding is perverse or incorrect. No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that the concurrent finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act does not warrant any interference by this court.

7.

The appellate court had taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the appellate court also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the compensation.

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/30.10.2015 True Copy PA to Judge