Mr. Biju Pj vs Mr. Robin Paul K
2022 Latest Caselaw 6646 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
     THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 402 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 257/2020 OF II ADDITIONAL
                     DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM
           ST 423/2017 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED :-

          MR. BIJU PJ
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O JOSEPH,
          RESIDING AT POOVANKERI HOUSE,
          VENNALA P.O, SOUMYA NAGAR.

          BY ADVS.
          T.B.GAFOOR
          MEERA PRAKASH
          SAFWAN K.


RESPONDENTS/RESPONSENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-

    1     MR. ROBIN PAUL K.
          AGED 49 YEARS
          S/O PAUL, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE,
          CONVENT ROAD, MANJUMMEL-683501.,
          PIN - 683501

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


          BY SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PP


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022
                                    2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 09th day of June, 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 "NI Act') and orders

of conviction of sentence passed successively by Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Kalamassery and Second Additional Sessions

Court, Ernakulam respectively in S.T.No.423/2017 and Crl.Appeal

No.257/2020. The trial court has found the revision petitioner guilty

and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for

3 months and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for one month. When the judgment of the trial

court was assailed, the appellate court has modified the sentence till

rising of the court. The direction to pay the fine amount and the

default sentence were maintained.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that DW1 was

examined by the revision petitioner with a view to rebut the CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022

presumption. But the court below did not rely upon the evidence

rendered by DW1 without any reason. According to him, aggrieved

by that, he has approached this court in revision.

3. The entire deposition of DW1 is read out by the learned

counsel. The discussion in the impugned judgment about the evidence

of DW1 is also perused. The accused does not have a consistent case.

In the reply notice he has stated that the amount was borrowed from

one Mr.Hari Prasad and the same was repaid. But when he mounted

the witness box to depose, he has spoken a different case. In the above

circumstances, that the court below discarded the version of DW1.

4. A jurisdictional error is not pointed out by the learned

counsel while canvassing for admitting the revision as directed by the

Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1) KHC 774

(SC)].

5. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. The

learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the

revision petitioner had some ailments and therefore he failed to pay

the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- imposed by the court below. This CRL.R.P.NO. 402 OF 2022

court is inclined to grant 45 days' time to pay the fine amount. The

court below shall not proceed to execute the sentence imposed on the

revision petitioner, in the meantime. If the revision petitioner fails to

pay the fine within the time granted, the court below shall initiate

appropriate proceedings for execution of the sentence.

In the result, Crl.R.P stands dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE SMA