AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act
by the courts below w3as 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 appellate court can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh Only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment
for one month under Section 138 of the N.I.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.
The learned Advocate Smt. Arunthathi, who is attached to the office of Adv4. Sunil Shankar, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, has
submitted that the first respondent has received the entire compensation awarded by the court and hence the first respondent has no further grievance
in the matter. In view of the above submission, it is recorded that the revision petitioner need not pay any further amount to comply with the direction
of payment of fine/compensation. In the result, this Revision Petition stands disposed of as above.