Kerala High Court
Design Point Builders And Developers vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2021
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1371 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 45/2014 DATED 08-09-2015 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2885/2012 DATED 09-01-2014 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS 1 & 2/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 DESIGN POINT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, SHINOJ KOLLARA, OPP. S.B.T. BANK,
KODANNUR, THRISSUR.
2 SHIJOJ KOLLARA
MANAGING PARTNER,
DESIGN POINT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
OPP. S.B.T. BANK, KODANNUR, THRISSUR
BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2 SURENDRAN
S/O.KITTA, KOOMANKAD HOUSE,
MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 571.
R1 BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.9/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1371 of 2015 &
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.9 of 2016
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.9 OF 2016
ST 2885/2012 DATED 09-01-2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
CRA 45/2014 DATED 08-09-2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
& SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/3RD APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED:
SREEKANTH KOLLATTU, AGED 32 YEARS
DESIGN POINT BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,
OPP.SBT BANK, KODANNUR, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
BY ADV. SHRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
BY ADV. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJU AUGUSTINE AKKARA
RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 SURENDRAN
KOOMANKAD HOUSE, MATHUR PO,
PALAKKAD 678 571.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL
SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1371/2015,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1371 of 2015 &
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.9 of 2016
-3-
ORDER
The above criminal revision petitions were filed by the accused persons in S.T.No.2885/2012 on the files of the trial court.
2. The revision petitioners were convicted and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short "the N.I. Act"), 1881.
3. Heard.
4. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioners executed Ext.P6 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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1371 of 2015 & Crl.Rev.Pet.No.9 of 2016 -4- notice of this Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction 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.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P6 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court against the second and the third accused, who are the second revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.1371/2015 and the sole revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.9/2016, can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred only) each, with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one month each, to meet the ends Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1371 of 2015 & Crl.Rev.Pet.No.9 of 2016 -5- of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realised, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
In the result, these criminal revision petitions stand allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner is granted four months to pay the fine/compensation as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
Needless to state that if the revision petitioners 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 Nkr/21.01.2021