Kerala High Court
Sukumara Pillai vs R. Vasanthi on 15 February, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 843 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2003 IN CC 27/2003 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS IV (MOBILE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
CRA 501/2003 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT:
SUKUMARA PILLAI,
S/o PADMANABHA PILLAI, DEVI PALACE,
KUPPAKONAM, NEDUMANGAD.
BY ADV SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
BY AMICUS CURIAE ADV. SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE:
1 R.VASANTHI, AVITTOM,
T.C 21/150, JUDGE ROAD,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL P. RAJ
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU V.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.02.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.844/2008, 845/2008, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.Nos.843, 844 & 845 of 2008 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 844 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2003 IN CC 59/2002 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS IV (MOBILE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
CRA 500/2003 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUKUMARA PILLAI,
S/o PADMANABHA PILLAI,
DEVI PALACE, KUPPAKONAM, NEDUMANGAD.
BY ADV SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
BY AMICUS CURIAE ADV. SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE:
1 R. VASANTHI, AVITTOM,
T.C.21/150, JUDGE ROAD,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL P. RAJ
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU V.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.02.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.843/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.Nos.843, 844 & 845 of 2008 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 845 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2003 IN CC 58/2002 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS IV (MOBILE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
CRA 499/2003 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUKUMARA PILLAI,
S/o PADMANABHA PILLAI,
DEVI PALACE, KUPPAKONAM,
NEDUMANGAD.
BY ADV SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
BY AMICUS CURIAE ADV. SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 R.VASANTHI, AVITTOM,
TC.21/150, JUDGE ROAD,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL P. RAJ
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU V.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.02.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.843/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.Nos.843, 844 & 845 of 2008 4
ORDER
Three cheques issued by the accused to the complainant
were dishonoured when presented for encashment.
Subsequently, criminal law was set in motion for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
by lodging a complaint after the compliance of requirement
as mandated under that Section. The trial court found that
the accused is guilty of the said offence and passed a
judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In appeal,
the sentence was modified till the rising of the court and
ordered a fine amount for the amount covered by the
respective cheques against which these three revisions were
filed.
2. The counsel for the revision petitioner remained
absent continuously and as such this court was forced to
appoint Smt.Sradha Mohan as an Amicus Curiae to assist this
court. Heard the Amicus Curiae in detail.
3. Extensive arguments were made by the Amicus Curiae
pertaining to the failure on the part of both the trial
court as well as the first appellate court regarding the
signature affixed as that of the accused in three cheques.
The Bank Manager was also examined as DW1, who, in turn,
deposed that there are dissimilarities in the signatures
found affixed in three cheques from that of the specimen
signature kept in the bank. Thereon, an application was
submitted for sending the disputed signature for expert
opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. But, it was
rejected by the trial court presumably on the reason that
the signature found affixed as that of the very same
accused in the vakalath and all other proceedings produced
before the court are written differently. There is no
similarity between those signatures. Hence, found that the
accused is a person having the habit of affixing different
signatures. Necessarily, the application submitted will not
serve any purpose. Admittedly, all these cheques were drawn
from the account of the accused, for which there is no
dispute at all. No satisfactory explanation was forwarded
by the accused while in the box as to how the signed cheque
and cheque leaves belonging to his account came into the
hands of the complainant, who is none else a close relative
of the accused. Necessarily, the concurrent findings of
conviction rendered by both the courts below regarding the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act as against the accused deserves no
interference.
4. The sentence awarded stood modified by the first
appellate judgment reflects a proper balance between the
mitigating circumstance and the mischief sought to be
suppressed under the Act, hence deserves no interference.
All the Criminal Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed.
The earnest effort made by the Amicus Curiae Adv.Sradha
Mohan in assisting this court is placed on record with high
appreciation.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
