K.N. Vinod Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 908 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.20 OF 2021

 CRA 463/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA

  CC 1066/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I
                      MUVATUPUZHA


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

           K.N. VINOD KUMAR
           AGED 54 YEARS
           S/O K NANU,
           VIRAD,
           CHITTADIYIL HOUSE, KOLANY P O,
           CHUNKAM,
           THODUPUZHA TALUK,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT-685554.

           BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

     2     SAJI AUGUSTINE
           AGED 49 YEARS
           S/O AUGUSTINE, RATHAPILLIL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU
           P O AND VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-
           686668.


OTHER PRESENT:

           PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.20 OF 2021

                                       -2-



                                  ORDER

Dated this the 11th day of January, 2021

The revision petition is filed challenging

the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.1066 of

2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Muvattupuzha, as modified by the

judgment in Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2018 of the

Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupzha. The

judgment convicting the revision petitioner was

rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by the

second 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.4,00,000/-

in favour of the second respondent, which, on

presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of

funds. Even though statutory notice was issued, Crl.Rev.Pet.No.20 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

second 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.4,00,000/-, 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 second respondent as compensation under

Section 357(3) 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.20 OF 2021

modified the sentence to imprisonment till the

rising of the court and retained the compensation

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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.20 OF 2021

second 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.4,00,000/-

(Rupees four lakhs only) within six months from

today. On remittance, the amount shall be paid

to the second 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/11.01.2021