Prameela v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/7TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1374 of 2015 () -------------------------------- JUDGMENT IN Crl.A 152/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26-06-2015 JUDGMENT IN ST 206/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, VARKALA DATED 31-03-2014 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

------------------------------------- PRAMEELA, D/O. SARASWATHY AMMA, THENGILAZHIKOM, KAITHAPPUZHA, AYIROOR (PO), VARKALA.

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & THE STATE: ------------------------------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. MOHANDAS, NANU PILLAI, NJARAKKAL VEEDU, AYIROOR (P.O.) VARKALA, PIN-695 141.

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2015

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.206 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Varkala.

2.

The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of 1,00,000/- to the ₹ complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this revision petition has been filed.

3.

Heard.

4.

The prosecution allegation is that towards the discharge of the amount due to the complainant, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant.

-2The 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, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same, unless the finding is perverse or incorrect. No circumstance

-3has 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 courts below had taken a very lenient view in the matter of sentence. In the said circumstances, the sentence awarded by the courts below also does not call for 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.

True Copy PA to Judge