Kerala High Court
Prasive Paulose vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2021
CRL.RP.290/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.290 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 39/2019 DATED 09-12-2020 OF
DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 556/2016 DATED 22-02-2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ADIMALI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
PRASIVE PAULOSE
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, PARAMBEL HOUSE,
MACHIPLAVU P.O., CHATTUPARA KARA, MANNAMKANDOM
VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
SRI.GEORGIE SIMON
SHRI.GOKIL JAGANNIVAS
SMT.SURYA SUNDARESAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018.
2. K.M.L.M CHITS INDIA LTD, 1ST FLOOR MATHEWSON TRADE
CENTRE, KALLOOR, COCHIN. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MANAGER MR.ABDUL LATHEEF
K.S., PIN-682 017.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.RP.290/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No. 290 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and
sentence in S.T.No.556 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Adimali, as modified by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.39
of 2019 of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha.
2. The case against the revision petitioner originated from the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation
was that, towards discharge of a debt, the revision petitioner had
issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the 2 nd respondent,
which, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
Even though statutory notice was issued, calling upon the revision
petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the demand was not met.
3. The trial court, after careful scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence tendered by the 2nd respondent, found the
cheque to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt and
returned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the revision
petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-,
with default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.
4. After considering the factual and legal contentions raised in
the appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified
sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
at length, I could not find any sustainable ground for interfering with
the concurrent findings of the courts below. Thereupon, the learned
Counsel raised an alternative plea that, in the event of this Court being
not inclined to entertain the revision petition, the time limit for
remitting the fine may be extended.
6. Considering the factual circumstances and the contentions
urged, I am inclined to grant the limited relief. Accordingly, the time
limit for payment of the cheque amount is extended by a further
period of eight months. In view of the limited relief being granted,
notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The
revision petitioner is granted eight months time for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. On remittance, the amount shall be paid to
the 2nd respondent as compensation. In view of the time granted by
this Court, coercive steps based on the impugned judgments, shall be
deferred for the period of eight months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
