Reshmi vs R. Radhakrishnan 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 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 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by the courts below does not

warrant any interference by this Court.

The revision petitioner is a lady. 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 of imprisonment till the rising of the court awarded by the appellate court can be set aside, retaining the

compensation and the default sentence, 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 ten months to pay the compensation as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.