Leo Peter vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9130 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. 481 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2428/2015 OF JUDICIAL
 MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM DATED 29/01/21
AND CRA 20/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
                        DATED 29/04/22
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

           LEO PETER
           AGED 52 YEARS,LEE DALE KERA NAGAR
           MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD P O.,SAKTHIKULANGARA
           VILLAGE, KOLLAM,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
           THAIKKATTIL HOUSE,KAVANAD P O SAKTHIKULANGARA
           VILLAGE KOLLAM, PIN - 691003

           BY ADVS.C.RAJENDRAN
                   B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
                   R.S.SREEVIDYA


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
           KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2      R SUDARSANAN PILLAI
           AGED 57 YEARS,SON OF RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
           KOTTOOR VEEDU,KOIKKAL MURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE
           EAST KALLADA P O KOLLAM, PIN - 691502


OTHER PRESENT:

           PP SRI V S SREEJITH


        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.481 of 2022
                                    2




                                ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022.

This revision is filed challenging judgments passed by

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam (for short 'the

trial court') and III Additional Court of Sessions, Kollam (for

short 'the appellate court') respectively in S.T.No.2428/2015 and

Crl.Appeal No.20/2021, finding the revision petitioner guilty and

convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment

till rising of the court and to deposit a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- as

fine and also to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

in case of default of payment of fine. By the judgments above,

the fine amount on realisation was also directed to be paid to the

complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Revision

on hand is filed against the above said concurrent findings of

guilt and orders of conviction and sentence.

2. It is contended by Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner that the notice issued prior to Crl.R.P.No.481 of 2022

the launching of the prosecution on hand does not contain every

aspects of the alleged transaction. According to him how the

liability was originated, the date on which it was originated and

what was the exact liability etc. were not stated in the notice and

the prosecution case is defeated for that reason. It is further

contended by the learned counsel that the source of income to

advance the amount is also not established by the complainant

and the prosecution suffers for that reason.

3. It is pertinent to note that PW1 was not cross

examined with reference to his source of income to advance the

amount. Therefore the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner is not entitled to raise that contention before this Court

firstly in revision. The dual purpose for which the notice was

served in a prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') is to inform the

accused that the cheque issued by him was not encashed for

insufficiency of funds or any of the valid reasons contemplated

under Section 138 NI Act and also to demand the payment

covered by the disputed cheque within 15 days' time granted.

Those aspects alone are required to be incorporated in the notice Crl.R.P.No.481 of 2022

and it need not contain the entire particulars of the transaction

as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

The argument of the revision petitioner is only to fail for the

reasons. The learned counsel has not advanced any arguments

on jurisdictional errors by which the judgments suffer. Therefore

the revision is not liable to be admitted and is dismissed.

However, the fine amount being Rs.4,05,000/-, this Court

is inclined to grant three months' time for deposit of the same.

The trial court shall not proceed with the execution of the

sentence for the time now stands extended. If the petitioner

fails to surrender before the trial court to serve the substantive

sentence till rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount on

the date on which the three months' period expires, the trial

court shall proceed to execute the sentence forthwith.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB