IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1239 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2022 IN CRA 176/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2021 IN CC 4492/2015 OF JMFC(SPECIAL COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES (TEMPORARY)

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

JAISON PAUL, AGED 55 YEARS, PADINJAREKKUTTE, KOCHUMULAKKUNNU, RAJAKKAD.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685566 BY ADVS.

BINCY P. PAUL S.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 S RAMESH SHENOY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARA SHENOY, CC NO 64/5207, ULLISERRY HOUSE, TD ROAD KOCHI, PIN - 682035

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV K.S.AJAYAGHOSH SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER It is against the concurrent judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused came up in revision. The judgment of conviction was rendered based on the oral testimony of PW1, the complainant, and also the document produced to show the compliance of requirement as mandated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused did not mount on the box to rebut the presumption by giving direct evidence. No other satisfactory evidence was adduced to rebut the presumption and nothing was brought out at the time of cross examination of PW1, the complainant, in that behalf. Necessarily, the concurrent judgment of conviction deserves no interference by this court.

2. On coming into the sentence awarded, what is ordered by the trial court is simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine amount of Rs.2,69,972/-. The cheque amount comes to Rs.2 lakhs. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 69,972/- was added by way of interest accrued by relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Kalamani Tex (M/s) and Another v. P. Balasubramanian [2021 (2) KHC 517 (SC)] and R.Vijayan v. Baby and another [(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 260]. It was submitted that the compensation that can be granted should reflect not only the cheque amount but the damages or loss sustained by the de facto complainant by the act of the accused. Necessarily, it would include the interest also. It is permissible to order minimum interest by way of fine so as to enable the complainant to get it under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Necessarily, the sentence awarded does not call for any interference by this court. The accused is directed to appear before the trial court within two months from today to receive the sentence.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1239/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21-04-2021 IN CC NO 4492/2015 JFCM (NIACT ) ERNAKULAM Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05-12-2022 IN CRL APPL NO 176/2021 FIRST ADDTL SESSIONS JUDGE ERNAKULAM RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1[a] True copy of the Intimation Letter dated.10.10.2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent