Anil Thomas Oommen vs Jimmy Joseph
2021 Latest Caselaw 1114 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 OF 2021

CRA 179/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL   SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

      CC 1170/2015 OF JMFC(NI ACT CASES) ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

           ANIL THOMAS OOMMEN
           AGED 59 YEARS
           KARIKKATTU HOUSE, MOTHER TERESA LINE, NAROTH
           ROAD, PUTHIYA ROAD,
           THAMMANAM P O,
           KOCHI-682032.

           BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANAS

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     JIMMY JOSEPH
           S/O JOSEPH, VADAKKEVEKIYIL, PRA-III,
           PERUMPADAPPU. KOCHI-682006.

     2     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
           COURT OF KERALA.


OTHER PRESENT:

           PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 OF 2021

                                       -2-



                                   ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2021

The revision petition is filed challenging

the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.1170 of

2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court

(N.I.Act Cases), Ernakulam, as modified by the

judgment in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2019 of the

Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The

judgment convicting the revision petitioner was

rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by the

first respondent alleging commission of an

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.1,75,000/-

in favour of the first respondent, which, on

presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of

funds. Even though statutory notice was issued, Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 OF 2021

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 a period of three months

and to pay fine of Rs.1,75,000/-, in default of

which the revision revision petitioner should

undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On

realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to

the first respondent as compensation under

Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Appeal filed by the

revision petitioner was allowed in part and the

appellate court, while confirming the conviction, Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 OF 2021

modified the sentence to imprisonment till the

rising of the court and retained the fine as

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 impressed with the challenge

raised in 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. The time limit for

payment of the cheque amount is extended by a

further period of six months. In view of the

limited relief being granted, notice to the first Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 OF 2021

respondent is dispensed with.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition

is allowed in part. The revision petitioner

shall remit the fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/-

(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand 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 fine before expiry of the six months 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

a period of six months.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/12.01.2021