Kerala High Court
Rajendran.R vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.155 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 91/2020 DATED 23-10-2020 OF DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 103/2019 DATED 29-02-2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAJENDRAN.R
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PATTU VEEDU, KUDAVACHOOR P.O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686144.
BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THOMAS MATHEW
S/O. MATHEW, KADAVIL IRON BRIDGE P.O, ALAPPUZHA
(DISTRICT), PIN - 688011.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.155 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021
The revision petition is filed, challenging the conviction and
sentence in S.T.C No.103 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Alappuzha, as confirmed by the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2020 of the Additional District and Sessions
Court (ADHOC-II), Kalpetta. The judgment convicting the revision
petitioner was rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by the second
respondent alleging commission of the 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.75,000/- in favour of the second 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.
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
returned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the revision
petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo to
imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.155 OF 2021
Rs.75,000/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three
months. On realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to the second
respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
3. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner was rejected
finding no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgement of
the trial court.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revision
petitioner at length, I was unable to find any reason for interfering
with the concurrent findings of the trial as well as appellate courts
below. The learned Counsel raised an alternative plea that, in the
event of this Court being not inclined to entertain the revision
petition, time limit for remittance of the fine amount may be
extended.
5. Considering the factual circumstances and the contentions
urged, I am inclined to grant that limited relief by extending the time
limit for payment of the cheque amount by a further period of eight
months. In view of the limited relief being granted, notice to the
second 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 eight months time from today for remitting the
fine amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only). The
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.155 OF 2021
amount, if any deposited by the revision petitioner before the
appellate court will be given due credit. On remittance, the fix
amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 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
SJ
