Baby Joseph vs Sudhan P.I And Ors

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the

N.I.Act').

Heard.

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext.P1

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 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and the submission at the Bar, I am of the

view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One lakh only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine

is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above. The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the fine/compensation

as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Needless to state that if the revision petitioner 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.