Mohammed Iqbal vs Prakasan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2675 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
         FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                       CRL.REV.PET NO. 189 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 461/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                        SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
 ST 33/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL COURT)FOR
                TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138, NIACT (TEMPORARY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             MOHAMMED IQBAL
             AGED 50 YEARS
             2/1946, THOUFEEQ, PALATTUTHAZHAM, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
             BY ADVS.
             M.B.SHYNI
             RAJESHKUMAR.V.R
             V.R.ANILKUMAR
             PAREETH LUTHUFIN K.B.
             RAMEES P.K.
             ERFANA PARAMBADAN


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

     1       PRAKASAN
             AGED 73 YEARS
             KOOTTAPLAKKIL HOUSE, PARAMBIL P.O., KOZHIKOE DISTRICT.,
             PIN - 673012
     2       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031



             PP SMT SEENA C


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
    CRL.REV.PET NO. 189 OF 2022


                                     -2-

                               JUDGMENT

This revision is directed against concurrent findings of guilt of the

revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (for short, 'NI Act') and consequent passing of orders of conviction

and sentence by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act

cases), Kozhikode, (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.33/2018, and 1 st

Additional Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, (for short, 'the appellate court')

in Criminal Appeal No.461/2019. The revision petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the trial court to pay a fine of Rs.1,48,766/- (Rupees

One lakh Forty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Six only) and

to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment

of the fine amount. The fine amount was also directed to be paid as

compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'). When the judgment of the trial

court was assailed in appeal, the Appellate Court has confirmed the

sentence.

CRL.REV.PET NO. 189 OF 2022

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that statutory

notice as contemplated by Clause (b) of proviso to section 138 was not

served on the revision petitioner. According to him, the contention was

taken in the examination held under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C.

3. According to the revision petitioner, notice in the prosecution

was not served on him, he being abroad at the relevant time. But he has

no case that notice was not issued in an address wherein he had never

stayed. The notice was taken to serve in the address furnished and was

returned with endorsement 'intimated, returned to sender'. The

contention taken during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C was that

he was not residing in the address in which lawyer notice was issued to

him and therefore, reply notice was not sent. Therefore, there was no

specific case for the revision petitioner regarding non-service of notice.

He also failed to adduce evidence to establish that he had no residence

in the place where notice taken for service and intimated.

4. Therefore, revision is only to fail and is dismissed in limine.

Fine amount payable as per the judgment assailed being Rs.1,48,766/-, CRL.REV.PET NO. 189 OF 2022

this Court is inclined to grant three month's time for deposit of the

same before the trial court. The revision petitioner shall pay the fine

amount on or before 10.06.2022. The trial court shall not proceed with

the execution of sentence till 10.06.2022. Revision petitioner has no

right to seek for further extension of time.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

uu