Kerala High Court
Rajendra Babu vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2021
Crl.RP.150/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.150 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 145/2019 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 314/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE ,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAJENDRA BABU
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O LEKSHMANAN,
SREENILAYAM, CHENTHITTA THODIYIL,
NEAR MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE,
ERAVIPURAM TEMPLE,
ERAVIPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691011.
BY ADV. SRI.R.N.SANDEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 AJITH G
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN,
AJI NIVAS, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691010.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.RP.150/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No. 150 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2021
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and
sentence in S.T.No.314 of 2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kollam, as modified by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.145 of
2019 of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam.
2. The case against the revision petitioner originated from the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging commission of 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.3,50,000/- in favour of the 2 nd respondent,
which, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
Even though statutory notice was issued, calling upon the 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 2 nd 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 till the rising of the court and to pay fine of
Rs.3,50,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for eighty
days. 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 the
sentence passed by the trial court.
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
2nd respondent is 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.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). On
remittance, the amount shall be paid to the 2 nd 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
vgs
