Kerala High Court
Salimma Joseph vs Rosamma Joseph on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 580 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 9/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS - II, CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM
CRA 168/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -
IV, KOTTAYAM / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
SALIMMA JOSEPH
AGED 57 YEARS
KANICHERIL HOUSE, HINDI TEACHER, ST.PETER'S H.S.S.,
KURUMBANADOM
BY ADVS.
NINU M.DAS
S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 ROSAMMA JOSEPH
( W/O. GEORGE THOMAS), PALATHINKAL HOUSE,
VAZHAPPALLY P.O. CHANAGANACHERRY- 686103
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PP SRI M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.REV.PET NO. 580 OF 2021
ORDER
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
The revision on hand is filed against concurrent
findings of guilt of the revision petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short 'NI Act') and passing of orders of
conviction and sentence by Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Changanassery (for short, 'the
trial court') and Additional District and Sessions
Court-IV, Kottayam (for short, 'the appellate
court') respectively in S.T.No.9/2017 and Crl.Appeal
No.168/2017.
2. S.T.No.9/2017 was a prosecution launched
by the 1st respondent in the revision under Section
142 of the NI Act. The trial court on appreciation
of evidence adduced by the parties during trial,
arrived at a finding of guilt of the accused for the
offence under Section 138 NI Act and convicted and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,85,000/- and
CRL.REV.PET NO. 580 OF 2021
also to undergo simple imprisonment for two months
in case of default in payment of fine. The fine on
realisation was also directed to be paid to the 1 st
respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)
(b)Cr.P.C. The judgment when assailed, the appellate
court confirmed the above and challenging that the
revision is filed.
3. Though the learned counsel has advanced
several arguments, it is not indicated therefrom
that the impugned judgments suffer for a
jurisdictional error as held by the Apex Court in
Bir Singh v.Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)].As
per the dictum in Bir Singh(supra) concurrent
findings, even if erroneous cannot be interfered
with by the revisional court unless convinced of a
jurisdictional error. Therefore, this Court is
declined to interfere with the concurrent findings
of guilt of the revision petitioner.
4. Nevertheless, the substantive sentence
imposed being simple imprisonment for three months,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 580 OF 2021
this Court is inclined to modify it to simple
imprisonment till rising of the court. The learned
counsel seeks for some indulgence in the matter of
grant of time for deposit of the fine amount and in
the prevailing scenario of pandemic this Court is
inclined to grant time till 31.01.2022. Trial court
shall not issue any coercive steps against the
petitioner till 31.01.2022.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before
the trial court and pay the fine amount on or before
31.01.2022. In case of default of the revision
petitioner to surrender before the court to serve
the substantive sentence and to pay the fine amount
on or before 31.01.2022, the trial court shall
proceed to execute the sentence as if the sentence
imposed by the courts below, was not modified by
this Court.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
hmh
