V K Abdul Latheef vs Smitha Bai Andarjanam
2022 Latest Caselaw 5579 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
               CRL.REV.PET NO. 364 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT dated 13.10.2021    IN CRA
       39/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR
 ST 39/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
                        II, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          V K ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. MOIDU,
          AGED 51 YEARS
          RESIDING AT VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, VALANCHERY
          P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          676552

          BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

   1      SMITHA BAI ANDARJANAM,W/O.SANKARAN
          NAMBOOTHIRI, RESIDING AT
          KOLOTHMANA HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O, MALAPPURAM
          DISTRICT, PIN - 676553

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



          BY Sr. P.P. SRI. RENJITH GEORGE


       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022
                                   2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022.

This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of

the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (for short the N.I. Act) and orders of conviction and sentence

passed respectively by Court of Additional Sessions, Tirur and Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-II, Tirur. The trial court has convicted the

accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two

months and pay compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant

under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and to undergo simple imprisonment for

one month in case payment of compensation is defaulted. When the

judgment is assailed before the appellate court, the appellate court

confirmed the same. Therefore, the revision petitioner now stands

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay

compensation as aforesaid.

Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner that apart from the disputed cheque no other documents have

been produced by the complainant to establish the transaction. In a 138

proceedings, cheque and materials evidencing presentation and

bouncing of it for the reason of insufficiency of funds alone are

required for the prosecution to sustain. The argument advanced by the

learned counsel did not indicate existence of a jurisdictional error as

held by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1)

KHC 774 (SC)]. The Apex Court has settled the position that

concurrent findings of guilt of the accused even if erroneous, cannot be

interfered with by a revisional court unless a jurisdictional error is

pointed out by the revision petitioner.

3. In the above circumstances, this Court is declined to

interfere with the judgment of the appellate court on merits. It is found

that the revision petitioner stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for two months as substantive punishment. This Court is inclined to

modify the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. Crl.R.P.No.364 of 2022

The Revision petition stands allowed in part. The substantive

sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by

the appellate court stands modified to simple imprisonment till rising of

the court. The other directions in the impugned judgment are

maintained.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/-.