Muhammed Sali vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9107 Ker

         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. 515 OF 2022
    ST 426/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                       ,AMBALAPUZHA
CRA 95/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

         MUHAMMED SALI
         AGED 60 YEARS
         S/O. YUNUS,
         THAYYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O.,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN : 688003,
         BY ADVS.
         G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI
         R.RAJENDRA PRASAD


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2    SIYAD
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O.AZEEZ,
         THAYYILCHIRA, THIRUMALA WARD, IRON BRIDGE P.O.,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688002, PIN - 688002


         PP SRI V S SREEJTH



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.515/2022

                                       2


                                     ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

This Revision Petition is filed challenging concurrent findings

of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the

N.I.Act) and orders of conviction and sentence passed

respectively by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Ambalapuzha (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.426/2017 and

Additional Court of Session-III, Alappuzha (for short 'the

appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.95/2020.

2. It is submitted by Sri.Priyadarsan Thampi, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner that the disputed cheque was

not issued on a date on which a legally enforceable debt was

there. According to him, as per the averments of the complainant

in the complaint, the transaction was allegedly occurred on

30.12.2014 but the date put by the accused beneath his

signature in the disputed cheque is 29.12.2014. The learned

counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a correction

in the date put at the top portion of the disputed cheque and Crl.R.P.No.515/2022

contended that it amounts to material alteration. According to

him, DW1 was examined on the side of the defence but the court

below has not considered the oral evidence tendered by him in

its proper perspective. Accordingly the Revision on hand was

sought to be admitted.

3. It is noticed from the copy of the disputed cheque

handed over to me at the Bar that the date in the column on the

right top side of the disputed cheque was 6.1.2015. It is true

that it has been stricken off and the date is re-written as

6.1.2015 with an initial therein. Therefore after striking off the

date, the same date was written there again with an initial of the

party, who did it. It cannot be taken as material alteration as

contemplated under Section 20 of the N.I.Act. The argument

advanced by the learned counsel is only to fail for the reason.

The second argument was that the evidence tendered by DW1

was not properly appreciated. This Court has gone through the

discussion in the judgment about the evidence of DW1. True

that he was examined as a witness of the accused, but, he did

not support the version of the accused/revision petitioner and

thereby declared as hostile. In the above circumstance that the

trial court has disbelieved him. Therefore, there is absolutely no Crl.R.P.No.515/2022

reason to interefere with judgments passed by the courts below.

The revision fails for the above reasons and is dismissed.

4. The fine amount directed to be paid by the judgments

is only Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the revision petitioner that Rs.8,000/- had already been paid

while suspending execution of the sentence before the appellate

court. Therefore, the balance amount due for payment is only

Rs.12,000/-. The learned counsel has sought for a month's time

for depositing the fine amount. This Court is inclined to grant 25

days' time.

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court

to serve the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment till

rising of the Court and to deposit the fine amount (if Rs.8,000/-

is already paid in compliance of the condition imposed while

suspending the execution of the sentence, it shall be given credit

to), on or before the date on which the time granted expires. In

the event of failure of the revision petitioner to do as above, the

trial Court shall proceed to execute the sentence forthwith.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

Mrcs.