Kerala High Court
Thomaskuty vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 367 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2023 IN CRA NO.83 OF 2021
OF SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARADU CASES), KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2021 IN ST NO.3 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - VIII, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:
1 THOMASKUTY, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O PAPPACHAN, PARTNER AMOOLIYA HERBALS AND COSMETIC
NO. 10/901, KULATHUPUZHA ROAD, EROOR, BHARATHIPURAM
POST, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312
2 JIJU, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O RAGHUVARAN, PARTNER AMOOLIYA HERBALS AND COSMETIC
NO. 10/901, KULATHUPUZHA ROAD, EROOR, BHARATHIPURAM
POST, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312
3 AMOOLIYA HERBALS AND COSMETICS,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER THOMASKUTTY AND JIJU, NO. 10/901,
KULATHUPUZHA ROAD, EROOR, BHARATHIPURAM POST,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691312
BY ADVS.
SHARAN SHAHIER
RAKHY BABY
TREESA SHAJI
ITTY PAULSON
STEPHY MARY SAJI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 M/S IDEAL PUBLICATIONS TRUST PUBLISHERS OF MADHYAMAM
DAILY, HEAD OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. REP. BY ADVERTISEMENT
MANAGER, MR. MUHAMMED JALEEL .V.T, AGED 55 YEARS,
MADHYAMAM DAILY, HEAD OFFICE, MARIKKUNNU POST,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673012
SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 367 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, 1881 (for short "the
N.I.Act", the accused came up in revision. The
sentence awarded is the bare minimum. The substantive
sentence is till the rising of the court and fine
amount of Rs.28,000/-, by fastening liability jointly
on accused Nos. 1 and 2. There is no much dispute
pertaining to the alleged transaction and issuance of
the cheque and the signature found affixed as that of
the accused. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the partners
of a partnership firm, accused No.3. The signature
found affixed as that of the executant is somewhat
admitted. There is no dispute pertaining to the
compliance of requirement as mandated under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. The accused has given oral evidence
as DW1 and got marked Exts. D1 and D2. Both the courts
below found that the complainant has succeeded in
establishing the due execution of the cheque in
question and also found that the cheque in question
stood supported by sufficient consideration as
CRL.REV.PET NO. 367 OF 2024
mentioned in the document. Nothing was brought to the
notice of this court in order to either rebut the
presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I.Act
or to interfere with the finding of due execution of
the cheque in question. Necessarily, the judgment of
conviction deserves no interference. As discussed
earlier, the sentence awarded is the bare minimum.
2. Having regard to the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, four months time
is granted to revision petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.
1 and 2 to remit the fine amount and to receive the
substantive sentence. Within that time, no coercive
steps shall be taken. The accused shall appear before
the trial court within that period to receive the
sentence.
The Criminal Revision Petition fails, and is
dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
