IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.12 OF 2021
Crl.A 152/2017 DATED 05-08-2020 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
ST 71/2017 DATED 23-05-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS II, ALATHUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
VASU
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. PALAKKAN, PENSIONER, KUPPAYIMUTHAN HOUSE,
NADUPATHY PARA, MUTHALAMADA P. O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678 507.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SEETHALAKSHMY
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN, 'NANDANAM', NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN,
ALATHUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678
541.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2021 The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence in S.T.No.71 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Alathur, as modified by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2017 of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad.
2. The case against the revision petitioner originated from the complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation was that, towards discharge of a debt, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the first respondent, which, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Even though statutory notice was issued, calling upon the Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021 -3- revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the demand was not met.
3. The trial court, after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the first respondent, found the cheque to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt and returned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the revision petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
4. After considering the factual and legal contentions raised in the appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021 -4- sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and retained the sentence of fine of Rs.6,00,000/-.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner at length, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial as well as appellate court. Thereupon, the learned Counsel raised an alternative plea that, in the event of this Court being not convinced about the challenge raised in the revision petition, the time limit for remittance of fine amount may be extended.
6. Considering the factual circumstances and the contentions urged, I am inclined to grant the limited relief. The time limit for payment of the cheque amount is extended by a further period of eight months. In view of the limited relief being granted, notice to the first respondent is Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021 -5- dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is granted eight months time for remitting the fine amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only). On remittance, the amount shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. In view of the time granted by this Court, coercive steps based on the impugned judgments, shall be deferred for a period of eight months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/08.01.2021