Kerala High Court
A.P.Bastin vs M/S.Amalgam Agriculture on 4 January, 2016
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2236 of 2005 ( )
---------------------------------
Crl.A 210/2004 OF VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
CC 555/1999 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
A.P.BASTIN, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.VINCENT PETER, ARRATTUKULAM, PALLITHODE P.O.
THURAVOOR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SURESH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. M/S.AMALGAM AGRICULTURE, APPLICATIONS
LTD., REGD. OFFICE, AMALGAM HOUSE
BRISTOW ROAD, W.ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, C.SREEKUMAR.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW
R,R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.2236 of 2005
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2016
ORDER
The accused in C.C.No. 555 of 1999 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ernakulam, has filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
2. Heard.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner issued Ext.P3 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued, which was returned as unclaimed as the revision petitioner refused to accept the Crl.R.P. No.2236 of 2005 -2- same even after the receipt of intimation from the postal authorities.
4. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.
5. The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence available before the court and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P3 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or 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.
6. The amount covered by Ext.P3 cheque is Crl.R.P. No.2236 of 2005 -3- Rs.1,40,000/-. The revision petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- during the pendency of the case, as is evident from the judgment of the appellate court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P3 cheque and also the amount paid by the revision petitioner during the pendency of the litigation, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of 65,000/- to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In the event of realisation of fine, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/04.01.2016 True Copy PA to Judge