Kerala High Court
Kunhammed @ Kunhippa vs Moosa Moulavi on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.110 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 24/2019 OF ADDITIONAL COURT OF
SESSION MANJERI DIVISION
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 1689/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KUNHAMMED @ KUNHIPPA,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR,
PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.B.SHYNI
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SHRI.PRASANTH K.T.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 MOOSA MOULAVI,
S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 63 YEARS, KONDERITHODI HOUSE,
PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, RAMAPURAM, PERNITHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.110 OF 2021 ..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of February 2021
Revision petitioner is the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.24/2019 of the Court of Session Manjeri
Division and the sole accused in S.T.No.1689/2015 of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Perinthalmanna, alleging commission of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1 st
respondent alleging that, towards the discharge of a
debt of Rs.4,00,000/-, the revision petitioner had
issued cheque dated 20.02.2013. The cheque, when
presented for collection, was returned with the
endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The statutory notice
demanding payment of the cheque amount evoked no
positive response and hence, the complaint.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.110 OF 2021 ..3..
2. In order to prove his case, the complainant
gave evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P9
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 him to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months and to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. Though,
an appeal was filed, challenging the conviction and
sentence, 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, the conviction and the sentence
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.110 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,
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 1st respondent is
dispensed with.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.110 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 'eight
months' time from today for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 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/22/02/2021 JUDGE
//true copy //
P.A to Judge
