IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 364 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT dated 13.10.2021 IN CRA
39/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR
ST 39/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
II, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
V K ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. MOIDU,
AGED 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, VALANCHERY
P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676552
BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SMITHA BAI ANDARJANAM,W/O.SANKARAN
NAMBOOTHIRI, RESIDING AT
KOLOTHMANA HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676553
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY Sr. P.P. SRI. RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022.
This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the N.I. Act) and orders of conviction and sentence passed respectively by Court of Additional Sessions, Tirur and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Tirur. The trial court has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in case payment of compensation is defaulted. When the judgment is assailed before the appellate court, the appellate court confirmed the same. Therefore, the revision petitioner now stands sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation as aforesaid.
Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022 3
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that apart from the disputed cheque no other documents have been produced by the complainant to establish the transaction. In a 138 proceedings, cheque and materials evidencing presentation and bouncing of it for the reason of insufficiency of funds alone are required for the prosecution to sustain. The argument advanced by the learned counsel did not indicate existence of a jurisdictional error as held by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1) KHC 774 (SC)]. The Apex Court has settled the position that concurrent findings of guilt of the accused even if erroneous, cannot be interfered with by a revisional court unless a jurisdictional error is pointed out by the revision petitioner.
3. In the above circumstances, this Court is declined to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court on merits. It is found that the revision petitioner stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two months as substantive punishment. This Court is inclined to modify the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022 4 The Revision petition stands allowed in part. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court stands modified to simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The other directions in the impugned judgment are maintained.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/-.