George Abraham vs Elias And Ors

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for 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 t3he 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, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months under Section 138 of the Act, to meet the ends 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, this C4riminal Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above.

The revision petitioner is granted six months to pay the 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.