Basheer @ Basheer Ravuthar vs Anoop
2021 Latest Caselaw 9995 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA,
                           1943

                 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.225 OF 2021

 CRA 213/2019 OF IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

  ST 38/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
                        KOYILANDY


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

           BASHEER @ BASHEER RAVUTHAR
           AGED 56 YEARS
           S/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           MULAKUZHA POST, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA, PIN-689
           505.

           BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     ANOOP
           S/O.VASU, PAVINA HOUSE, PANTHALAYANI,
           REPRESENTED BY BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS,
           S/O.DAMODHARAN, SUKURITH HOUSE, KURUVANGAD
           POST, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKDOE, PIN-673 305.

     2     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
           COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.


OTHER PRESENT:

           SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.225 OF 2021

                                   -2-



                                ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2021

The revision petition is filed challenging

the conviction and sentence in ST No.38 of 2016

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,

Koyilandy, as confirmed by the judgment in

Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2019 of the Ist

Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The

judgment convicting the revision petitioner was

rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by the

first 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.2,00,000/- in favour of

the first respondent, which, on presentation, had

bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Even Crl.Rev.Pet.No.225 OF 2021

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

first 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 imprisonment till

rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/-

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(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

3. The appeal filed by the revision

petitioner was rejected finding no ground to

interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.225 OF 2021

trial court.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

revision petitioner at length, I found no ground

warranting interference with the concurrent

findings of the courts below. At that juncture,

the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised an

alternative plea that, at least, the 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 the

limited relief of extending the time for payment

of the cheque amount. In view of the limited

relief being granted, notice to the first

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 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.225 OF 2021

petitioner is granted ten months from today for

remitting the fine amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only). On

remittance, the amount shall be paid to the first

respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)

(b) of 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 ten

months.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/24.03.2021