Kerala High Court
Sudheer Preethu vs Lukmanuel Hakkim A.A on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.109 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 451/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT,MOOVATTUPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 668/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGIST. COURT-II, KOTHAMANGALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SUDHEER PREETHU
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O PAREETHU, KOZHIKKAL HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM
P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM PIN-686 693.
BY ADV. SHRI.P.V.ELIAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 LUKMANUEL HAKKIM A.A.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O ALIYAR, ALLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, THALAKODE
P.O.NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 693.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.109 OF 2021 ..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of February 2021
Revision petitioner is the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.451/2018 of the Additional District and
Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha and the accused in
C.C.No.668/2014 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam. The case
originated from a complaint filed by the 1st
respondent alleging that, towards the discharge of a
debt of Rs.75,000/-, the revision petitioner had
issued cheque dated 18.07.2012. The cheque, when
presented for collection, was returned with the
endorsement 'insufficiency of funds'. The statutory
notice demanding payment of the cheque amount
evoked no positive response and hence, the
complaint alleging commission of offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.109 OF 2021 ..3..
2. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and
marked Exts.P1 to P6 documents. 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 to undergo simple
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay
fine of Rs.75,000/-. 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, conviction and the sentence imposed
by the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.109 OF 2021 ..4..
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. This Court having
refused to entertain the revision, the learned
Counsel raised an alternative plea for grant of
further time for payment of the fine amount.
5. Taking into account the fact that the
transaction had taken place in 2012 and that the
revision petitioner had diligently contested the case
all through, the request for grant of further time is
found to be reasonable. Considering the limited
relief being granted, notice to the 1 st respondent is
dispensed with.
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
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.109 OF 2021 ..5..
'eight months' time from today for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.75,000/-. If the fine amount is not
remitted within the eight 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/15/02/2021 JUDGE
//true copy// P.A to Judge
