Mohanan vs A. Thomas 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. Actâ€​), 1881.

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, I am of the view that the sentence awarded

by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs

only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months, to meet the ends of justice. It is

ordered accordingly.

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.

I make it clear that since the first respondent, who is the complainant, is no more, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled to the compensation.

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 respondent Nos.3 to 5.