Beena D vs Sajeev Keyan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2187 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
 THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 83 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
 NO.246/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-V,
                             KOZHIKODE
  AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2019 IN S.T.NO.236/2017 ON THE
FILES OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (NI
                       ACT CASES), KOZHIKODE


ACCUSED/ APPELLANT/REVISION PETITIONER:

            BEENA D, AGED 40 YEARS
            PRANAVAM, EDAT P.O, PAYYANNUR
            KANNUR, PIN - 670237

            BY ADV SRI.P.V.VINOD (BENGALAM)


COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:

    1       SAJEEV KEYAN,
            AGED 47 YEARS
            SON OF RAGHAVAN
            SREERAGAM HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O,
            KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005

    2       STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM


            SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS   CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.83 of 2022

                                     2

                                   ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022

This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of

the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and

passing of orders of conviction and sentence by Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode (for short 'the trial

court') in S.T.No.236/2017 and Additional Court of Sessions V,

Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.246/2019.

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case on hand.

2. Sri.P.V.Vinod, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner urged to admit the revision petition mainly on two

grounds:

The first one was that neither in the complaint nor in the proof

affidavit filed by the complainant, the date of execution of the cheque

and the place where it was executed are not mentioned. According

to him the prosecution is only to fail for the reason. The second

argument was that the case of the complainant that Rs.3,37,500/-

was advanced by him to the accused without the transaction being Crl.R.P.No.83 of 2022

witnessed by anyone else and without obtaining any security is a

highly improbable one and in such a context, the trial court ought not

to have taken a view that the execution is proved by the complainant

and the presumptions under Sections 139 and 118(a) NI Act are

applicable. According to the learned counsel, the judgments assailed

suffer for improper appreciation of evidence and are liable to be

reversed in revision.

3. On a reading of the judgments assailed, this Court is

convinced that the revision petitioner had admitted issuance of a

signed cheque before the trial court. The position of law is now

settled by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1)

KHC 774 (SC)] that concurrent findings, evenif erroneous, are not

liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that those suffer on

account of a jurisdictional error.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to

point out any jurisdictional error in the judgments assailed.

Therefore, the revision is not admitted.

5. The trial court sentenced the accused to pay fine of

Rs.5,00,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for four months Crl.R.P.No.83 of 2022

as default sentence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and

thereby confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted

that due to the financial stringency created by Covid-19 pandemic,

the revision petitioner could not deposit the fine amount. He seeks

for showing indulgence by granting some more time for depositing

the fine amount.

This Court is inclined to grant eight months' time. The revision

petitioner shall see that the fine amount is paid within the time now

granted by this Court. The trial court shall not proceed with

execution of sentence in the meantime. In case of default of the

revision petitioner, the trial court shall proceed to execute the default

sentence forthwith. The revision petitioner will not be granted any

further time.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB