Jalaja vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 16492 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jalaja vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

CRL.REV.PET NO. 611 OF 2024

                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
          TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 611 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2024 IN CRA NO.94 OF 2023 OF SESSIONS
                          COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2023 IN CC NO.895 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL
                    MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,VARKALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

              JALAJA,
              AGED 66 YEARS,
              W/O CHANDRAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VANDIPPURA,
              PALAYAMKUNNU.P.O., CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695011
              BY ADV M.DINESH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & COMPLAINANT:

      1       STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
      2       NAZIMUDHEEN,
              S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, KOCHUTHENGU VILA, PALACHIRA.P.O.,
              CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695143


              SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 611 OF 2024

                                            2


                                       ORDER

It is against the concurrent judgment of

conviction and order of sentence in a prosecution

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

the accused came up, on the ground that there is no

satisfactory evidence to show the source of amount

involved in the case. But, at the time of cross-

examination, no question was put up in that behalf,

except a single question suggesting that the

complainant did not have any source of income, which

was rightly denied by the complainant. No other

further question was raised at the time of cross-

examination of complainant. On the other hand, both

the trial court and the first appellate court found

the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No other

reason was brought to the notice of this court. The

sentence awarded is the bare minimum till rising of

court and the fine amount for the amount covered by

the cheque. Hence, it deserves no interference. CRL.REV.PET NO. 611 OF 2024

2. Having regard to the submission made by the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner, four

months time is granted to pay the fine amount and to

receive the substantive sentence. Till that time, no

coercive steps shall be taken against the revision

petitioner.

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp