2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 718 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2020 IN Crl.A NO.123 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - I, MAVELIKKARA IN ST NO.2223 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, HARIPAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: MUKUND U PILLAI AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, PATTOLIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SMT.S.SIBHA SHRI.ANOOP SEBASTIAN SMT.DEEPA VALENTINE LESLIE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 K.G.RAJU AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, KOTTAHIRAYIL HOUSE, PITHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY ADVS. S.SANAL KUMAR 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -2- BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN T.J.SEEMA R1 SRI.SANGEETHARAJ NR, PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.719/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO.719 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2020 IN Crl.A NO.122 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - I, MAVELIKKARA IN ST NO.1352 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, HARIPAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: MUKUND U PILLAI AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, PATTOLIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK 690 531. BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SMT.S.SIBHA KUM.PARVATHY VIJAYAN SHRI.ANOOP SEBASTIAN SMT.DEEPA VALENTINE LESLIE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 K.G.RAJU S/O. GOPALAN, KOTTATHIRAYIL HOUSE, PITHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE 690 531. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -4- BY ADVS. S.SANAL KUMAR BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN T.J.SEEMA SMT.SEETHA S, SR PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.718/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -5- G. GIRISH, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025 ORDER These revision petitions are filed against the judgments rendered by the Additional Sessions Court - I, Mavelikkara, in S.T.Nos.2223 of 2016 and 1352 of 2016, confirming the conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Haripad, in connection with the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate was modified by the Appellate Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court coupled with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs each under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant / 1st respondent. 3. On going through the judgments under challenge, it is seen that the courts below have rightly appreciated the entire 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -6- evidence on record and arrived at a correct finding regarding the criminal liability of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived by the courts below. When the above view of this Court was made clear in open court, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that a reasonable time may be afforded to the petitioner to make payment of the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner has to be permitted to make payment of the compensation amount within a period of six months from today. Therefore, the judgments rendered by the Appellate Court are liable to be modified to the above effect. In the result, both these revision petitions stand disposed of as follows:- (i) The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 2025:KER:30307 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.718 & 719 of 2020 -7- Act, are hereby upheld. (ii) The sentences awarded by the Appellate Court are also upheld subject to the modification that the petitioner will be entitled to make payment of the compensation amount as directed by the Appellate Court within a period of six months from today. Transmit the case records, along with a copy of this order, to the Trial Court. Sd/- G. GIRISH JUDGE ded