Prinsha Pradeep vs M.V.Nalinakshan
2024 Latest Caselaw 13688 Ker

Kerala High Court

Prinsha Pradeep vs M.V.Nalinakshan 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. 538 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2024 IN CRA NO.135 OF 2019 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 03.05.2019 IN STC NO.661 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          PRINSHA PRADEEP, AGED 34 YEARS,
          D/o PRADEEP, KALATHIL HOUSE,
          CHIRAKKARA.P.O, THALASSERY, PIN - 670104

          BY ADVS. P.S.BINU
                   K.SEENA


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

    1     M.V.NALINAKSHAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
          "ATHIRA", KAVUM BHAGAM THALASSERY,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670649

    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.538 of 2024          2




                             ORDER

It is against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused came up in

revision.

2. Both the trial court and the first appellate

court found the accused guilty of the said offence

based on the oral testimony of complainant and the

documentary evidence. No evidence worth the name was

adduced by the accused. The accused even did not mount

on the box to give any direct evidence. In fact, there

is no much dispute pertaining to the cheque leaf which

belonged to the account maintained by the accused and

the signature affixed as that of him. Necessarily,

the concurrent judgment of conviction rendered by both

the courts below deserve no interference. The sentence

awarded reflects a proper balance as it is a simple

imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine

amount for the amount covered by the cheque. Hence,

the Criminal Revision fails and is dismissed. But,

having regard to the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, four months time is

granted to the petitioner to receive the sentence.

Till that time, no coercive steps shall be initiated

against the petitioner. The petitioner/accused 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/-