Jose Freeda Edwin vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 4807 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jose Freeda Edwin vs State Of Kerala 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. 1234 OF 2023
     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 48/2022 OF SESSIONS COURT,
                          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
        CC 3875/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (JMFC XII) (TEMPORARY)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

           JOSE FREEDA EDWIN
           AGED 59 YEARS
           W/O. EDWIN JOHNSON, SOWPARNIKA PROJECTS,
           SHIRDI TOWERS, FLAT NO.11 AE,
           OPPOSITE ST. THOMAS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
           MUKKOLAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 695043

           BY ADVS.
           SHAJIN S.HAMEED
           SONAY JOHN



RESPONDENTS/STATE:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031

    2      REGHUNADANAN THAMPI. K
           T.C.36/564, POURNAMI, PALKULANGARA,
           VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 695008

           R1 BY ADV SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
           R2 BY ADVS.
                     SRI GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
                     SRI R.B.BALACHANDRAN(K/411/2004)



     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. 1234 OF 2023

                                      2



                                ORDER

The accused was found guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act by both the courts below and

rendered a judgment of conviction and order of

sentence. The only ground raised by the accused

is that no notice was served to the accused as

mandated under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. On the other hand, the

complainant has produced the copy of the

registered notice along with the postal receipt

and returned envelope with an endorsement

"unclaimed." She took pain to give direct

evidence as DW1 and produced the Aadhaar card in

order to show that she is having a different

address than the address shown in the registered

envelope. The officer of the postal authority who

tendered the notice was not examined by the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1234 OF 2023

accused in order to show that she was not having

any such address at the relevant time, and it

was not tendered or brought to the notice of the

addressee. Both the courts below rejected the

said contentions and concurred with the findings

of conviction. Nothing else was brought to the

notice of this Court. Hence, the judgment of

conviction deserves no interference.

The sentence awarded reflects a proper

balance. The accused is directed to 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