Kerala High Court
Navas. K vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2021
Crl.RP.165/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.165 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 106/2020 OF DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 40/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -IV, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
NAVAS. K
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KASIM, ASIYA MANZIL, AVALOOKUNNU WARD,
THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCECO. (P) LIMITED,
ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY JOBY CHACKO,
ASSISTANT LEGAL MANAGER, LEGAL AND POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER OF SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE
LIMITED, ALLEPPEY BRANCH.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.RP.165/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No. 165 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and
sentence in S.T.No.40 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-IV, Alappuzha, as modified by the judgment in Criminal Appeal
No.106 of 2020 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha.
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.81,500/- 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.81,500/- 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(3) 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 six
months. In view of the limited relief being granted, notice to the 2 nd
respondent is dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The
revision petitioner is granted six months time for remitting the fine
amount of Rs.81,500/- (Rupees eightyone thousand five hundred 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 six months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
