K.R. Mohanan vs N.K. Surendran And Ors

These revision petitions arise out of the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short "the N.I. Act") in C.C.No.2000/2007 and C.C.No.2001/2007.

Heard.

The prosecution case is that Exts.P1 and P2 cheques were issued to the complainant by the revision petitioner in connection with the borrowing of an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees four lakh and twenty five thousand only).

Ext.P1 cheque is involved in C.C.No.2000/2007 and Ext.P2 cheque is involved in C.C.No.2001/2007. The trial court jointly tried both the cases.

It appears that the courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Exts.P1 and P2 cheques 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 in C.C.Nos.2000/2007 and 2001/2007 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 Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in C.C.No.2000/2007 can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for three months and the sentence awarded by the appellate court in C.C.No.2001/2007 can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two 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 realised in the above said cases, 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 ten 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.