IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2019 IN S.T.NO.16/2019 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - X, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2021 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.489/2019 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAMEELA, AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O.MAMMU, RESIDING AT VALIYAMADAKKARA, KANNUKARA,
MADAKKORA BEACH, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673012
BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SMT.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 M/S CHEMMANNUR INTERNATIONAL JEWELERS
MM ALI ROAD, PALAYAM, CD BOBY, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, RESIDING AT VILLA NO:8,
SKYLINE MEADOWS, SADANAM ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.371 of 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of May, 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 and sentence passed respectively by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court X, Kozhikode (for short 'the trial court') and Court of Sessions, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court').
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the disputed cheque which formed the basis for the prosecution was issued as a security at the time when Rs.30,000/- was borrowed. According to him, the amount was repaid and payment of interest alone defaulted. The complainant has misused the cheque given as security and the prosecution in question was launched. According to him, there is a sufficient reason in that context to interfere with the judgments of the courts below in the revision on hand.
Crl.R.P.No.371 of 2022 3
3. This Court has noticed from the judgment of the trial court that evidence has not been adduced by the revision petitioner to establish that the principal sum has been discharged and interest alone was due. Therefore the ground canvassed by the learned counsel will not justify his argument that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in the matter. In the above circumstances, the judgments assailed are not liable to be interfered with on merits.
4. It is found that the substantive sentence awarded is simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.3,25,000/-. The appellate court has confirmed the same in the appeal. This Court finds justification in modifying the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court.
In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay fine and the default sentence are maintained.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB