Kerala High Court
Rojeendran K.R vs T.Santhosh on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.72 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 42/2020 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 14/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -III, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ROJEENDRAN K.R
AGED 38 YEARS
KRISHNA VIHAR, THAICKAL P.O., WARD-11,
KADAKKARALPPALLI PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.PRAMOD
SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 T.SANTHOSH
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. THANKAPPAN, THEKKE INDIRATHAR, CMC 6, VARANAD
PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 539.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.72 OF 2021 ..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of February 2021
Revision petitioner is the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.42/2020 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha
and the accused in S.T.No.14/2019 of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-III, Cherthala, alleging
commission of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The case originated
from the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent
alleging that, towards the discharge of a debt of
Rs.50,000/-, the revision petitioner had issued
cheque dated 07.09.2013. The cheque, when
presented for collection, was returned with the
endorsement 'lack of funds'. The statutory notice
demanding payment of the cheque amount evoked
no positive response and hence, the complaint.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.72 OF 2021 ..3..
2. In order to prove his case, the complainant
gave evidence as PW1 and PW2 and marked Exts.P1
to P6 documents. DW1 and DW2 were examined on
the side of the revision petitioner. The learned
Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence and
legal contentions, came to the conclusion that the
complainant had succeeded in proving the cheque to
have been issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt. Consequently, the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay
fine of Rs.50,000/-. Even though, the conviction and
sentence was challenged in appeal, the appellate
court, after detailed consideration of the legal and
factual contentions, dismissed the appeal.
3. This revision petition is filed assailing the
finding of guilt and the conviction and sentence
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.72 OF 2021 ..4..
imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the
appellate court.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
attempted to challenge the findings of the courts
below, on the ground of mis-appreciation of evidence
and misunderstanding of law. Having failed in the
endeavour, the learned Counsel raised an alternative
plea that, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, further time for payment of the fine may be
granted.
5. Taking into account the fact that the
transaction had taken place in 2013 and that the
revision petitioner had diligently contested the case
all through, I consider the request for grant of
further time to be reasonable. Considering the
limited relief being granted, notice to the 1 st
respondent is dispensed with.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.72 OF 2021 ..5..
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is
allowed in part. The finding of guilt and conviction
is affirmed and the revision petitioner is granted 'six
months' time from today for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.50,000/-. If the fine amount is not
remitted within the six month period, the benefit
granted under this judgment will stand recalled and
the trial court shall proceed to execute the sentence.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
SB/09/02/2021 JUDGE
//true copy//
P.A to Judge
