P.N.Sasi vs M.K. Paul
2024 Latest Caselaw 13686 Ker

Kerala High Court

P.N.Sasi vs M.K. Paul on 27 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                  CRL.REV.PET NO. 476 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2023 IN CRA NO.13 OF 2018 OF
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2017 IN ST NO.1043 OF 2015 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT)
ADIMALY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          P.N.SASI, AGED 57 YEARS,
          PARIYAZHATHU H), PAZHAYAVIDUTHI BHAGAM,
          MAMMATTIKKANAM KARA, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE,
          UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN - 685604

          BY ADVS. B.SURJITH
                   RAHANA JOSE
                   LIJO JOSEPH
                   AKSHAYA REGHU


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

    1     M.K. PAUL, AGED 64 YEARS,
          MOOLAMKUZHIYI (H), RAJAKKAD KARA,
          UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685554

    2     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

          R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT NIMA JACOB




THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.476 of 2024                 2

                                    ORDER

It is against the judgment of conviction for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and the sentence awarded, the accused

came up in revision.

2. The only dispute raised at the revisional

stage is that even in the complaint or in the demand

notice, the nature of legally enforceable debt was not

disclosed. It is not at all necessary to disclose the

nature of legally enforceable debt either in the

complaint or in the demand notice. The due execution

of the cheque and the consideration covered by the

cheque are not in dispute. On the other hand, the

accused produced Ext.P1 cheque in order to show a part

payment of the amount covered by the cheque in

question and that was accepted by the trial court by

reducing the fine amount to the tune of Rs.2,80,500/-.

Nothing was brought to the notice of this court in

order to interfere with the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence. On the other hand, the sentence

awarded reflects a proper balance as it is for return

of the amount due by way of fine and substantive

sentence till rising of court. Necessarily, there is

no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgment of

conviction and order of sentence. But, having regard

to the submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, three months time is granted to the

petitioner to pay the fine amount and to receive the

sentence. Till that time, no coercive steps shall be

taken against the petitioner. The petitioner shall

appear before the trial court within that time to

receive the sentence.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand

dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE DMR/-