Kerala High Court
George vs Jomon Oomen Mathew @ on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 OF 2021
CRA 156/2018 DATED 26-11-2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA
ST 76/2017 DATED 26-06-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.CHERUKUTTY, CHERUVATHOOR KRIPA HOUSE,
PRAYAR, PANDANAD
BY ADVS.
SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN
SMT.VARNA MANOJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 JOMON OOMEN MATHEW @
JOMON OOMEN MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.OOMEN MATHEW, PADINJARA EDASSERIYATHU
HOUSE, PRAYAR, PANDANAD-ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-
689124
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OOMMEN
MATHEW
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031
ERNAKULAM
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 OF 2021
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2021
The revision petition is filed challenging
the conviction and sentence in S.T.No.76 of 2017
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Chengannur, as modified by the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 of the Additional
Sessions Court, Mavelikara. The judgment
convicting the revision petitioner was rendered
pursuant to a complaint filed by the first
respondent alleging commission of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The allegation was that, towards discharge
of his debt, the revision petitioner had issued a
cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the first
respondent, which, on presentation, had bounced
due to insufficiency of funds. Even though
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 OF 2021
statutory notice was issued, calling upon the
revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount,
the demand was not met.
2. The trial court, after careful scrutiny of
the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the
first respondent, found the cheque to have been
issued towards a legally enforceable debt and
that the cheque was returned for insufficiency of
funds. Consequently, the revision petitioner was
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months and to pay
fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of which the
revision petitioner should undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by
the revision petitioner was allowed in part and
the appellate court, while confirming the
conviction, modified the sentence to imprisonment
till rising of the court and retained the fine as
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 OF 2021
such.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner at length, this Court could
not find any ground for interfering with the
concurrent findings of the trial as well as
appellate court. 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 remittance
of the fine may be extended.
4. Considering the factual circumstances
and the contentions urged, I am inclined to grant
the limited relief of extending the time limit
for payment of the fine amount. In view of the
limited relief being granted, notice to the first
respondent is dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition
is allowed in part. The finding of guilt and
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 OF 2021
conviction is affirmed and the revision
petitioner shall remit the fine amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within six
months from today. On remittance, the amount
shall be paid to the first respondent as
compensation. The revision petitioner shall pay
the compensation before expiry of the six month
period, failing which the reliefs granted under
this judgment will stand withdrawn. In view of
the time granted by this Court, coercive steps
based on the impugned judgments, shall be
deferred for six months.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/16.02.2021
