Sajith K.R vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3147 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

     THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                     Crl.Rev.Pet.No.25 OF 2021

     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 190/2018 DATED 17-08-2019 OF
            ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM

     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1652/2015 DATED 27-03-2018 OF
           JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             SAJITH K.R, AGED 31 YEARS
             S/O. RAJENDRAN, KARUVELIPARAMBIL, HOUSE, PACHALAM
             P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 012.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.V.SHAJU
             SMT.RESMI THOMAS
             SRI.K.V.SURESH KUMAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

      2      JOHN P.P., AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O. PAUL, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PACHALAM P.O.
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 012.

             R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
             R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA

OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.25 OF 2021          ..2..




                                  ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of January 2021

Revision petitioner is the appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.190/2018 of the Additional Sessions

Judge-VII, Ernakulam and the accused in

C.C.No.1652/2015 of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The case originated

from a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging

that, towards the discharge of a debt of

Rs.3,20,000/-, the revision petitioner had issued

cheque dated 19.02.2014. The cheque, when

presented for collection, was returned with the

endorsement 'account closed'. The statutory notice

demanding payment of the cheque amount evoked

no positive response and thereby, the revision

petitioner had committed the offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.25 OF 2021 ..3..

2. In order to prove his case, the complainant

gave evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4

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 and that the cheque was returned for reason of

the accused having closed his accounts.

Consequently, the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3

months and to pay fine of Rs.3,20,000/-. The

conviction and sentence was challenged in appeal

and the appellate court, after detailed consideration

of the legal and factual contentions allowed the

appeal in part, by confirming the conviction and

modifying the sentence of imprisonment to, Crl.Rev.Pet.No.25 OF 2021 ..4..

imprisonment till rising of the court.

3. This revision petition is filed assailing the

finding of guilt and the conviction and sentence

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 2014 and that the

revision petitioner had diligently contested the case

all through, I consider the request for grant of Crl.Rev.Pet.No.25 OF 2021 ..5..

further time to be reasonable. Considering the

limited relief being granted, notice to the 2nd

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

'three months' time from today for remitting the fine

amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. If the fine amount is not

remitted within the three 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/28/01/2021                        JUDGE


                      //true copy// P.A to Judge