Kerala High Court
Rajeswary.S @ Rajeswary. S. Mavelil vs A.V.Mohandas on 7 February, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1222 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 969/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS ,AMBALAPUZHA
CRA 92/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJESWARY.S @ RAJESWARY. S. MAVELIL,
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT IDITHARAYIL VEEDU,
THURAVOOR P O, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688532
BY ADVS.
P.YADHU KUMAR
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
SULFIKAR S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 A.V.MOHANDAS
ARADHANA, C.M.C - 2, CHERTHALA PO,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688524
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
R1 BY ADVS.
SRI. K.R.VINOD
SMT. M.S.LETHA(K/139/1996)
R2 BY ADV. SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1222 OF 2023
2
ORDER
Prosecution was initiated for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against the accused, in which,
PW1, the complainant had given oral evidence.
The documents of dishonour along with the cheque
and a copy of the demand notice were produced in
order to show the compliance of the mandate
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The accused, in turn, admitted his
signature and also admitted that the cheque leaf
was drawn from his account. But, advanced a case
that it was given not to the complainant but to
his wife. The wife was also examined as DW1,
along with her brother DW2. Nothing was brought
out at the time of cross-examination of either
the complainant PW1 or his wife DW1 or her
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1222 OF 2023
brother DW2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the complainant was subject to a
very lengthy cross-examination because there
existed some elements of truth. Hence, it has to
be presumed that the case advanced by the
complainant is totally false. On the other hand,
there are concurrent findings of fact by both
courts below regarding the due execution of the
cheque and the consideration thereof. Nothing
was brought out during the cross-examination of
PW1, DW1, and DW2 in support of the version
advanced by the accused. The accused did not
mount on the box so as to give any direct
evidence and to testify by cross-examination.
Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the
finding of conviction of the accused for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1222 OF 2023
The sentence awarded reflects a proper
balance. Hence, it deserves no interference. The
accused shall appear before the trial court
within two months from today to receive the
sentence.
The Crl.R.P will stand dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
