Kerala High Court
Sasi T. K vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
Friday, the 5th day of April 2024 / 16th Chaithra, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.2/2024 IN CRL.REV.PET NO. 393 OF 2024
CRA 111/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM
ST 2/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, VAIKOM
APPLICANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SASI T.K., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KUNJU, THANNIKKALNIRAPPEL VEDU, VELLOR
VILLAGE, IRUMBAYAM KARA, , IRUMBAYAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686605.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERANAKULAM., PIN - 682031.
2. JAISON JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, KOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTHAVARA
P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686607.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence order
passed in CC No.2/2016 of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court - II,
Vaikom by its judgment dated 11-12-2019, till the disposal of this
revision petition, in the interest of justice.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.RAJAGOPAL PADIPPURACKAL, Advocates
for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the first respondent and
of M/S.GEORGE MATHEW KARAMAYIL, SUNIL KUMAR A.G, MATHEW K.T., GEORGE K.V.,
STEPHY K REGI & MEDHA B.S. Advocates for the second respondent, the Court
passed the following:
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.393 of 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024
ORDER
Crl.M.A.Nos.1 of 2024 & 2 of 2024
These are the two applications for condonation
of delay, which comes to 473 days and for
suspending the sentence. The counsel for the
petitioner remained absent. Adv.Vinaya appeared on
behalf of the counsel.
2. The first appeal preferred against the
judgment of conviction in a prosecution under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was
dismissed as time barred. The delay occasioned in
preferring the first appeal, which comes to 333
days was not condoned by the first appellate court.
It is submitted that being a first appeal against
the judgment of conviction, it has to be construed
as a right available to the party within the period
of limitation and thereafter it would fall under
the mischief of discretion that can be exercised,
wherein the principle of advancing justice has to
be adopted as far as possible. That noble
principle has not been adhered to by the first
appellate court and that has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.
3. The sentence on the revision petitioner
will stand suspended on executing a bond for
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate within a
period of one month and also on deposit of 20% of
the cheque amount within that time. On deposit of
20 % of the cheque amount, the same shall be
released to the defacto complainant.
Both the applications will stand allowed.
Post the Crl.R.P, for final hearing on
03.06.2024.
Sd/-
P. SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
05-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
