Kerala High Court
Valsa Augustin vs A.A Lazar on 2 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 526 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 235/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD,
ST 123/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VALSA AUGUSTIN, AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST
NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 A.A LAZAR,AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET,
VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN- 678 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.
R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.529/2019,
AND 528/2019, THE COURT ON 02.11.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 529 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 233/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD,
ST 129/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VALSA AUGUSTIN,AGED 46 YEARS
W/O AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST
NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 A.A.LAZAR, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET,
VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN-678 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.526/2019
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 02.11.2021 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 528 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 234/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD,
ST 117/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VALSA AUGUSTIN,AGED 46 YEARS
W/O AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST
NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 A.A.LAZAR, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET,
VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT - 678 001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.526/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
02.11.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
-:4:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
-------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021
ORDER
The above revisions are filed against the concurrent finding
of guilt of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') and
the orders of conviction and sentence passed consequently by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Alathoor and II
Additional Court of Sessions, Palakkad by judgments respectively
dated 14.09.2017 and 16.01.2019.
2. Notice on admission was ordered in the revisions
following which, the respondent entered appearance through
Adv.Johnson Varikkappallil. On the request of the respective
counsel, parties were sent for mediation, but it ended
unsuccessfully. Therefore, the counsel for the revision petitioner
was heard in detail on merits of the revision. The learned
counsel failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the findings
of the courts below affirmatively on guilt of the accused under
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
Section 138 N.I Act and passing of orders of conviction and
sentence.
3. The evidence in the case on hand incorporates the oral
evidence tendered by the complainant as PW1 and documentary
evidence consisting of Exts.P1 to P6. On a scrutiny of the
evidence it is revealed that accused has not disputed the
authorship of signature found affixed in Ext.P1 cheque. It is
further convinced from the evidence on record that the accused
had issued the disputed cheque to the complainant. When
issuance of the cheque and affixture of signature therein were
admitted by the accused, presumption under Sections 118 and
139 N.I. Act would operate to the benefit of the complainant that
the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a valid debt and
therefore is supported by consideration. Then the accused has to
take the burden to rebut the presumption. The accused did not
adduce any evidence in defence to rebut the presumption. Cross
examination of PW1 by the accused also did not serve the
purpose of bringing any preponderance of probabilities in
evidence to disbelieve the case put forth by the complainant. In
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
the above context, the accused was found guilty under Section
138 N.I. Act and the judgment when assailed, the finding was
confirmed by the appellate court.
4. As far as the sentence imposed is concerned for the
reason that the courts below have imposed only fine which is
only equivalent to the amount covered by the cheque. The
sentence imposed being the minimum prescribed by N.I.Act,
there is no scope for modification of the same. As held by the
Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774
(SC)] the revisions are only liable to fail in the context of the
cases.
Revisions fail and are dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
ttb
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019
