IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 402 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 257/2020 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM
ST 423/2017 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED :-
MR. BIJU PJ
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT POOVANKERI HOUSE,
VENNALA P.O, SOUMYA NAGAR.
BY ADVS.
T.B.GAFOOR
MEERA PRAKASH
SAFWAN K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONSENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-
1 MR. ROBIN PAUL K.
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O PAUL, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE,
CONVENT ROAD, MANJUMMEL-683501.,
PIN - 683501
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 09th day of June, 2022 This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act') and orders of conviction of sentence passed successively by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery and Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam respectively in S.T.No.423/2017 and Crl.Appeal No.257/2020. The trial court has found the revision petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. When the judgment of the trial court was assailed, the appellate court has modified the sentence till rising of the court. The direction to pay the fine amount and the default sentence were maintained.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that DW1 was examined by the revision petitioner with a view to rebut the CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022 3 presumption. But the court below did not rely upon the evidence rendered by DW1 without any reason. According to him, aggrieved by that, he has approached this court in revision.
3. The entire deposition of DW1 is read out by the learned counsel. The discussion in the impugned judgment about the evidence of DW1 is also perused. The accused does not have a consistent case. In the reply notice he has stated that the amount was borrowed from one Mr.Hari Prasad and the same was repaid. But when he mounted the witness box to depose, he has spoken a different case. In the above circumstances, that the court below discarded the version of DW1.
4. A jurisdictional error is not pointed out by the learned counsel while canvassing for admitting the revision as directed by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1) KHC 774 (SC)].
5. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner had some ailments and therefore he failed to pay the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- imposed by the court below. This CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022 4 court is inclined to grant 45 days' time to pay the fine amount. The court below shall not proceed to execute the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, in the meantime. If the revision petitioner fails to pay the fine within the time granted, the court below shall initiate appropriate proceedings for execution of the sentence.
In the result, Crl.R.P stands dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE SMA