Dhanesh K.J vs Pius
2022 Latest Caselaw 9115 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. 1286 OF 2019
    AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2019 IN CRL.A NO.405/2018 OF
               ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
    ST NO.5860/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
                     KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLATN/ACCUSED :-

          DHANESH K.J
          AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O LATE JAYANANDAN, KOOTHAPPILLY HOUSE,
          EDAMPADAM ROAD, MANJUMMEL, ERNAKULAM.


          BY ADV Martin Roy P A


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :-

    1     PIUS,
          AGED 62 YEARS
          S/O CHANDY, MATTUMMEL HOUSE, UDYOGAMAMDAL(PO),
          ELOOR, ERNAKULAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 683501.

    2     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682 031.

          SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PP


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO.1286 OF 2019
                                       2



                             ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

This revision petition is filed challenging judgment passed by

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery (for short 'the

trial court') and Court of Sessions, Ernakulam (for short 'the

appellate court') respectively in S.T. No.5860/2015 and

Crl.A.No.405/2018. By the judgment of the trial court, the revision

petitioner was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section

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

and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

three months and to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as fine and

simple imprisonment for one month in case of default in deposit of

fine amount. It is further directed that the fine amount on deposit

shall be defrayed as compensation to the complainant under Section

357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C.').

2. When the judgment of the trial court was assailed before

the appellate court, the appellate court has allowed the appeal in CRL.REV.PET NO.1286 OF 2019

part. The findings of guilt and conviction of the revision petitioner

under Section 138 of NI Act was confirmed, but the substantive

sentence was modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of

the court. The direction to deposit the fine amount and thereafter to

defray it as compensation to the complainant was confirmed. It is at

that juncture, the revision petitioner has rushed to this Court in the

revision on hand seeking to set aside the judgments above

mentioned.

3. Sri.Martin Roy, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner has contended that the evidence of DW1 a witness of the

defence has not been properly appreciated by the court below.

According to him, the complainant and the accused had no direct

monetary dealings. According to him, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the

complainant to one Mr.Dhanesh. To establish that aspect

Mr.Dhanesh was also examined by the accused as DW1.

4. The judgment of the trial court incorporates an elaborate

discussion on the evidence tendered by DW1. DW1 has deposed to

the effect that the complainant has advanced only Rs.1,00,000/- to CRL.REV.PET NO.1286 OF 2019

the accused. The case of the accused was that himself and the

complainant had no direct dealings, but only a monetary transaction

through DW1, whereby Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced to DW1. For

the reason that a version contrary to the defence version of the

accused was tendered by DW1 the trial court, discredited him.

Accused failed to adduce any other evidence in rebuttal of the

presumption attracted in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the

accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced. The

appellate court confirmed the finding. The revision petitioner failed

to point out any jurisdictional error by which the judgment suffers.

Therefore, there is no reason to admit the revision. Revision fails for

the reason and is dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks for

some indulgence in the matter by granting some more time for

depositing the fine amount. The fine amount being Rs.2,00,000/- ,

this Court is inclined to grant two months' time. The trial court shall

not proceed to execute the sentence imposed on the revision

petitioner during the time now stands extended for payment. If the CRL.REV.PET NO.1286 OF 2019

revision petitioner fails to surrender and to pay the fine amount

within the time granted, the trial court shall proceed to execute the

sentence forthwith.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE SMA