K.. Sunil vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

K.. Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                     CRL.REV.PET NO. 529 OF 2024
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2024 IN CRA NO.88 OF 2021 OF
    ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, KOLLAM/ V
                              ADDL.MACT
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2021 IN ST NO.147 OF 2016 OF
         JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

            K. SUNIL, AGED 48 YEARS,
            S/O KUTTAPPANPROPRIETOR,GAYATHRI FOOTWEARS GIFT HOUSE,
            SASTHAMCOTTA, FROM KALLUVILA PADINJATATHIL MANAKKARA
            MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521
            BY ADV KEERTHI SOLOMON


RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2       VALSALA JAMES, AGED 45 YEARS,
            D/O JAMES, KALLUMPURATHU THEKKETHIL MANAKKARA MURI,
            SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 690521

            SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 529 OF 2024

                                          2


                                      ORDER

The revision petition came up for admission today. It is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused came up.

2. The cheque amount comes to Rs.1 lakh. It is admitted that they are family friends. Regarding the due execution of the cheque the signature found affixed in the cheque as that of the accused is somewhat admitted. No explanation was forwarded by the accused how the signed cheque came into the hands of the complainant. Both the courts below found that the complainant succeeded in establishing due execution of the cheque. There is no dispute pertaining to the compliance of mandate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, it appears that there is no reason to interfere with the CRL.REV.PET NO. 529 OF 2024 3 judgment of conviction rendered by both the courts below. The substantive sentence awarded for two months does not reflect a proper balance, hence will stand modified to till the rising of court besides the fine amount of Rs. 1 lakh covered by the cheque, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is fit and proper to grant three months time to the petitioner/accused to pay the fine amount and to receive the substantive sentence. Till that time, no coercive steps shall be taken. The accused shall appear before the trial court within that time to receive the sentence.

The Criminal Revision Petition is not admitted and is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp