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. 481 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2428/2015 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM DATED 29/01/21
AND CRA 20/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
DATED 29/04/22
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
LEO PETER
AGED 52 YEARS,LEE DALE KERA NAGAR
MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD P O.,SAKTHIKULANGARA
VILLAGE, KOLLAM,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
THAIKKATTIL HOUSE,KAVANAD P O SAKTHIKULANGARA
VILLAGE KOLLAM, PIN - 691003
BY ADVS.C.RAJENDRAN
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 R SUDARSANAN PILLAI
AGED 57 YEARS,SON OF RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
KOTTOOR VEEDU,KOIKKAL MURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE
EAST KALLADA P O KOLLAM, PIN - 691502
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI V S SREEJITH
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.481 of 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022.
This revision is filed challenging judgments passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam (for short 'the trial court') and III Additional Court of Sessions, Kollam (for short 'the appellate court') respectively in S.T.No.2428/2015 and Crl.Appeal No.20/2021, finding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to deposit a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- as fine and also to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in case of default of payment of fine. By the judgments above, the fine amount on realisation was also directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Revision on hand is filed against the above said concurrent findings of guilt and orders of conviction and sentence.
2. It is contended by Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the notice issued prior to Crl.R.P.No.481 of 2022 3 the launching of the prosecution on hand does not contain every aspects of the alleged transaction. According to him how the liability was originated, the date on which it was originated and what was the exact liability etc. were not stated in the notice and the prosecution case is defeated for that reason. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the source of income to advance the amount is also not established by the complainant and the prosecution suffers for that reason.
3. It is pertinent to note that PW1 was not cross examined with reference to his source of income to advance the amount. Therefore the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not entitled to raise that contention before this Court firstly in revision. The dual purpose for which the notice was served in a prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') is to inform the accused that the cheque issued by him was not encashed for insufficiency of funds or any of the valid reasons contemplated under Section 138 NI Act and also to demand the payment covered by the disputed cheque within 15 days' time granted. Those aspects alone are required to be incorporated in the notice Crl.R.P.No.481 of 2022 4 and it need not contain the entire particulars of the transaction as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The argument of the revision petitioner is only to fail for the reasons. The learned counsel has not advanced any arguments on jurisdictional errors by which the judgments suffer. Therefore the revision is not liable to be admitted and is dismissed.
However, the fine amount being Rs.4,05,000/-, this Court is inclined to grant three months' time for deposit of the same. The trial court shall not proceed with the execution of the sentence for the time now stands extended. If the petitioner fails to surrender before the trial court to serve the substantive sentence till rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount on the date on which the three months' period expires, the trial court shall proceed to execute the sentence forthwith.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB