IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 515 OF 2022
ST 426/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
,AMBALAPUZHA
CRA 95/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
MUHAMMED SALI
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. YUNUS,
THAYYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN : 688003,
BY ADVS.
G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI
R.RAJENDRA PRASAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SIYAD
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.AZEEZ,
THAYYILCHIRA, THIRUMALA WARD, IRON BRIDGE P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688002, PIN - 688002
PP SRI V S SREEJTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.515/2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022 This Revision Petition is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the N.I.Act) and orders of conviction and sentence passed respectively by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.426/2017 and Additional Court of Session-III, Alappuzha (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.95/2020.
2. It is submitted by Sri.Priyadarsan Thampi, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the disputed cheque was not issued on a date on which a legally enforceable debt was there. According to him, as per the averments of the complainant in the complaint, the transaction was allegedly occurred on 30.12.2014 but the date put by the accused beneath his signature in the disputed cheque is 29.12.2014. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a correction in the date put at the top portion of the disputed cheque and Crl.R.P.No.515/2022 3 contended that it amounts to material alteration. According to him, DW1 was examined on the side of the defence but the court below has not considered the oral evidence tendered by him in its proper perspective. Accordingly the Revision on hand was sought to be admitted.
3. It is noticed from the copy of the disputed cheque handed over to me at the Bar that the date in the column on the right top side of the disputed cheque was 6.1.2015. It is true that it has been stricken off and the date is re-written as 6.1.2015 with an initial therein. Therefore after striking off the date, the same date was written there again with an initial of the party, who did it. It cannot be taken as material alteration as contemplated under Section 20 of the N.I.Act. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is only to fail for the reason. The second argument was that the evidence tendered by DW1 was not properly appreciated. This Court has gone through the discussion in the judgment about the evidence of DW1. True that he was examined as a witness of the accused, but, he did not support the version of the accused/revision petitioner and thereby declared as hostile. In the above circumstance that the trial court has disbelieved him. Therefore, there is absolutely no Crl.R.P.No.515/2022 4 reason to interefere with judgments passed by the courts below. The revision fails for the above reasons and is dismissed.
4. The fine amount directed to be paid by the judgments is only Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that Rs.8,000/- had already been paid while suspending execution of the sentence before the appellate court. Therefore, the balance amount due for payment is only Rs.12,000/-. The learned counsel has sought for a month's time for depositing the fine amount. This Court is inclined to grant 25 days' time.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court to serve the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to deposit the fine amount (if Rs.8,000/- is already paid in compliance of the condition imposed while suspending the execution of the sentence, it shall be given credit to), on or before the date on which the time granted expires. In the event of failure of the revision petitioner to do as above, the trial Court shall proceed to execute the sentence forthwith.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE Mrcs.