Kerala High Court
Navas K vs State Of Kerala on 22 March, 2021
WP(C).2031/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.798 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 252/2019 DATED 29-07-2020 OF
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 18/2019 DATED 30-11-2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
NAVAS K.,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. KHALID, EDATHIL HOUSE, MARKET WARD, NEAR HDFC
BANK, ALAPPUZHA 688 001
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH .P
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 033
2 MADASWAMY,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. NINAN CHETTIYAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MUNICIPAL
OFFICE WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST, ALAPPUZHA 688 001
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).2031/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No. 798 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence in
S.T.No.18 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Alappuzha,
as confirmed by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2019 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.3,00,000/- 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 2nd 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.3,00,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for
three months. On realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to the 2 nd
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
imposed 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 inclined to
entertain the revision petition, the time limit for payment of fine amount
may be extended.
6. Considering the factual circumstances and the contentions urged, I
am inclined to grant the limited relief. 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.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). On
remittance, the amount shall be paid to the 2nd respondent as compensation.
In view of the time granted, coercive steps based on the impugned
judgments shall be kept in abeyance for eight months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
