Kerala High Court
Vasu vs Seethalakshmy on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.12 OF 2021
Crl.A 152/2017 DATED 05-08-2020 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
ST 71/2017 DATED 23-05-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS II, ALATHUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
VASU
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. PALAKKAN, PENSIONER, KUPPAYIMUTHAN HOUSE,
NADUPATHY PARA, MUTHALAMADA P. O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678 507.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SEETHALAKSHMY
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN, 'NANDANAM', NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN,
ALATHUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678
541.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2021
The revision petition is filed challenging
the conviction and sentence in S.T.No.71 of 2017
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Alathur, as modified by the judgment in Criminal
Appeal No.152 of 2017 of the Additional Sessions
Court-II, Palakkad.
2. The case against the revision petitioner
originated from the 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.6,00,000/- in favour of the first
respondent, which, on presentation, had bounced
due to insufficiency of funds. Even though
statutory notice was issued, calling upon the
Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021
revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the
demand was not met.
3. 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 returned for insufficiency of funds.
Consequently, the revision petitioner was found
guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay
fine of Rs.6,00,000/- with default sentence of
simple imprisonment for three months. On
realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to
the first respondent as compensation under
Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
4. After considering the factual and legal
contentions raised in the appeal, the appellate
court confirmed the conviction and modified the
Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021
sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of
one month and retained the sentence of fine of
Rs.6,00,000/-.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner at length, I find no reason
to interfere 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 convinced
about the challenge raised in the revision
petition, the time limit for remittance of fine
amount may be extended.
6. 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 eight months. In view of the limited relief
being granted, notice to the first respondent is
Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2021
dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition
is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is
granted eight months time for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only).
On remittance, the amount shall be paid to the
first respondent as compensation. In view of the
time granted by this Court, coercive steps based
on the impugned judgments, shall be deferred for
a period of eight months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/08.01.2021
