Kerala High Court
Satyaprakash.R vs Suresh.T.R on 27 June, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.3 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII,
ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.154 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SATYAPRAKASH.R.,
AGED 42 YEARS
KOMPATHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, NEAR JUMA
MASJID, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT C/O.SURENDRAN,
KALAMASSERY PARAMBIL, NEAR MAGALIYAM TEMPLE,
IRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.JOSHI VARGHESE
SHRI.R.SAJEEV
SRI.S.SUJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SURESH.T.R.,
S/O.RAGHAVAN, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THEKKUMBHAGAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682
301.
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
2
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.667 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the concurrent finding of
conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura and also
by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a complaint against
the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act) before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura. The
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and the
case was taken on file as CC No.154/2015. After trial, the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,70,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. If the
fine is realised, there is a direction to pay the same to the
complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court,
Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam
considered the appeal and confirmed the conviction and
sentence. Hence this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner. Even though notice is issued to the 1 st respondent,
there is no appearance. I also heard the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The short point raised by Sri.T.M. Chandran, the
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the
complaint is barred by limitation. The counsel takes me
through the last portion of the appellate court judgment. It will
be better to extract the same.
"In the present case the period of 15 days expired on
7th January 2013. So the cause of action for filing
complaint would arise from 8th January 2013. That
day is to be excluded for counting the period of one
month. Therefore in this case, the complaint had to
be filed on 9th February 2013. 9th February was a
second Saturday and 10 February was a Sunday.
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
Therefore the complaint filed on 11th February 2013
is within time."
6. The appellate court considered this point. The
appellate court observed that 15 days after the dishonour
expired on 07.01.2013. Therefore the court find that the cause
of action for filing the complaint would arise on 08.01.2013. It
is further observed by the appellate court that, that day is to be
excluded for counting the period of one month. Thereafter the
appellate court observed that the complaint had to be filed on
09.02.2013 and since 09.02.2013 is a second Saturday and
10.02.2013 is a Sunday, the complaint was filed only on
11.02.2013. The point raised by the revision petitioner is that
the 31st day after the cause of action started will end on
08.02.2013. The counsel submitted that as per Section 142(b)
of the NI Act, the complaint is to be made within one month on
the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of
proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. This Court perused the
High Court Calendar of 2013. It is clear that the 31 st day will
come on 08.02.2013, if the date is reckoned from 09.01.2013.
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
Admittedly 08.02.2013 is a working day. Since the wording
used in Section 142(b) is "within one month", the complaint
ought to have been filed on or before 08.02.2013. Admittedly
in this case the complaint is filed on 11.02.2013. There is no
dispute to the fact that 08.02.2013 was a working day. If that
is the case, the complaint filed is barred by limitation.
Therefore the complaint is to be rejected and the conviction
and sentence imposed on the petitioner is also to be set aside.
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed with following
directions:
1. The conviction and sentence imposed on
the revision petitioner as per judgment
dated 28.07.2021 in Criminal Appeal
No.3/2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam and also
as per judgment dated 07.12.2018 in CC
No.154/2015 passed by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura are
set aside. The revision petitioner is
acquitted.
2025:KER:46755
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2021
2. The bail bond, if any, executed by the
revision petitioner, stands cancelled.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
