Kerala High Court
Jameela vs M/S Chemmannur International ... on 27 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2019 IN S.T.NO.16/2019 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - X, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2021 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.489/2019 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAMEELA, AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O.MAMMU, RESIDING AT VALIYAMADAKKARA, KANNUKARA,
MADAKKORA BEACH, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673012
BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SMT.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 M/S CHEMMANNUR INTERNATIONAL JEWELERS
MM ALI ROAD, PALAYAM, CD BOBY, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, RESIDING AT VILLA NO:8,
SKYLINE MEADOWS, SADANAM ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.371 of 2022
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of May, 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 and sentence passed respectively by Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court X, Kozhikode (for short 'the trial
court') and Court of Sessions, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate
court').
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that the disputed cheque which formed the basis for the
prosecution was issued as a security at the time when Rs.30,000/-
was borrowed. According to him, the amount was repaid and
payment of interest alone defaulted. The complainant has misused
the cheque given as security and the prosecution in question was
launched. According to him, there is a sufficient reason in that
context to interfere with the judgments of the courts below in the
revision on hand.
Crl.R.P.No.371 of 2022
3. This Court has noticed from the judgment of the trial
court that evidence has not been adduced by the revision
petitioner to establish that the principal sum has been discharged
and interest alone was due. Therefore the ground canvassed by
the learned counsel will not justify his argument that revisional
jurisdiction can be exercised in the matter. In the above
circumstances, the judgments assailed are not liable to be
interfered with on merits.
4. It is found that the substantive sentence awarded is
simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.3,25,000/-.
The appellate court has confirmed the same in the appeal. This
Court finds justification in modifying the substantive sentence to
imprisonment till rising of the court.
In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Substantive
sentence of simple imprisonment for three months is modified to
imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay fine and
the default sentence are maintained.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
NAB
