Kerala High Court
Suhaib vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 522 OF 2022
ST 1927/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
PONNANI
CRA 189/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
SUHAIB, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAVA, KODAKKATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHIYANOOR
AMSOM DESOM, KOKKUR PO, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI
SHIFA LATHEEF
SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031
2 RASAK, S/O. USMAN, ERATTEL HOUSE, VELIYANKODE PO,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 679577
BY SR PP SRI RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.523/2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.522 & 523 of 2022
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 523 OF 2022
ST 1928/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PONNANI
CRA 190/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
SUHAIB
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAVA, KODAKKATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHIYANOOR
AMSOM DESOM, KOKKUR PO, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT , PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI
SHIFA LATHEEF
SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031
2 RASAK,
S/O. USMAN, ERATTEL HOUSE, VELIYANKODE PO, PONNANI
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 679577
BY PP SRI V S SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.522/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.522 & 523 of 2022
3
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
These Revisions have been originated from judgments
passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani (for short
'trial court') and Court of Sessions, Manjeri (for short 'Appelate
Court') and orders of conviction and sentence passed
respectively in S.T.Nos.1927/2015 and 1928/2015 in Crl.Appeal
No.189/2019 and 190/2019. The trial Court has convicted the
revision petitioner by its judgment passed in S.T.No.1927/2015
for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short the N.I.Act) and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section
357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') and
also to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in case of
default in payment of compensation. The trial Court in
S.T.No.1928/2015 found the revision petitioner guilty for an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and
convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
Crl.R.P.No.522 & 523 of 2022
for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation
and also to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in case
of default in payment of compensation.
2. When the judgments of the trial Court were assailed
before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court has allowed both
appeals in part. In Crl.Appeal No.189/2019 the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner was modified to simple
imprisonment till rising of the Court and the direction to pay the
compensation amount was reduced to Rs.3,72,000/- and the
default sentence was maintained. Crl.Appeal No.190/2019 was
also allowed in part and the sentence imposed was modified to
simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. The directions to
pay the compensation amount and default sentence were
maintained. It is against the above judgments that the revision
Petitions on hand are filed by the accused as revision petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that the disputed cheques at the time of issuance to
the complainant were signed but the entries were kept blank.
According to her, entries of the disputed cheque were filled up
not by the revision petitioner, but by the complainant.
According to her, opportunity was denied to the revision
Crl.R.P.No.522 & 523 of 2022
petitioners to establish that the entries in the cheques were not
filled up by him. According to him, the above reasons are
sufficient to admit the revisions on hand.
4. The Apex Court has held in Bir Singh v. Mukesh
Kumar (2019 (1) KHC 774) that when signatures affixed in
the cheques have been admitted by the accused as voluntarily
put, who filled up the entries in the cheques has no serious
impact on the prosecution. The view taken by the Apex Court
was that in such a circumstance, the accused can be taken to
have given implied authority to the complainant to fill up the
entries and to present it for encashment. According to the Apex
Court, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act would
also be attracted in favour of the complainant if signature is
admittedly put, and the onus is on the accused to rebut the
presumption by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is
pertinent to note that other evidence have not been adduced by
the accused in the case on hand. He did not even choose to
mount the witness box to depose the above aspect. Though it is
contended that opportunity has been denied to him by the court
below to establish his contention, it is found that not even an
attempt was made by him to avail the opportunity.
Crl.R.P.No.522 & 523 of 2022
5. In the above circumstances, both Revisions fail and
are dismissed. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel
that in one case cheque amount is Rs.3,72,000/- and in the
other, cheque amount is Rs.4,00,000/- and the revision
petitioner requires time to pay the amount to the complainant.
This Court is inclined to grant three months and four months
respectively in Crl.R.P.522/2022 and Crl.R.P.523/2022. The trial
Court shall not proceed to execute the sentence imposed on the
revision petitioner during the time now stands extended for
payment of the compensation. The revision petitioner shall
surrender before the court below to serve the substantive
sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and file a
memo evidencing payment of compensation to the respondent in
the Revision on or before the date of expiry of the period now
stands extended. In the event of failure of the revision petitioner
to surrender and produce the memo as stated above, the trial
Court shall proceed to execute the sentence then and there.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
Mrcs.
