Kerala High Court
R.Venu Gopal vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2012
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/26TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1873 of 2012 ()
-------------------------------
CRA.74/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST
TRACK COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA
ST.2463/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
R.VENU GOPAL
T.C.NO.41/158, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT(S):
-----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
2. MULAMOOTTIL FINANCE CORPORATION
KOZHANCHERRY, P.A. HOLDER V.K. ABRAHAM, MANAGER
MULAMOOTTIL FINANCE CORPORATION, KOZHANCHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW-R2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR-R1
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
CRL.R.P. No.1873 OF 2012
==========================
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2012
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction in Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2010 of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner who was the accused in S.T.No.2463 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta was tried for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the revision petitioner. The appellate court, as per the impugned judgment, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months were virtually confirmed. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under section Crl.R.P.1873/12 2 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.
2. The courts below carefully scanned the evidence, both oral and documentary. Upon such consideration, it was found that Ext.P2 cheque was validly drawn by the petitioner herein for discharging the legally enforceable debt owing to the second respondent-complainant. The courts below have also found that all the ingredients to attract the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act have been proved against the petitioner. It is in the circumstances that the revision petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced accordingly. The revision petitioner has not made out a case of palpable perverse appreciation of evidence by the courts below. In the said circumstances, there is no scope for interfering with the concurrent finding of the conviction against the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I Act is hereby confirmed.
Crl.R.P.1873/12 3
3. As per the impugned judgment, the appellate court set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on the revision petitioner. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months were confirmed. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the second respondent-complainant under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The amount of fine directed to be paid as compensation is the amount actually covered by Ext.P2 cheque and the cheque is dated 15.10.2007. In the said circumstances, I do not find any scope to interfere with the sentence, as well. Resultantly, the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is hereby confirmed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the amount of fine that is directed to be paid as compensation to the second respondent-complainant under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, while confirming Crl.R.P.1873/12 4 conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner is granted four months' time from today to pay the amount of fine. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be given as compensation to the second respondent-complainant. The revision petitioner is permitted to pay the amount of fine either directly to the second respondent- complainant or to deposit the said amount before the trial court within the above stipulated time. In case the revision petitioner pays the said amount directly to the second respondent-complainant, he shall produce a memo to that effect, before the trial court. In case of his failure to pay/deposit the amount of fine within the above stipulated period, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence.
Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(Judge)
spc/
Crl.R.P.1873/12 5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P.1873/12 6
JUDGMENT
September, 2010