IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE4H DAY OF JUNE201414TH JYAISHTA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 984 of 2014 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRL.A3312012 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),N.PARAVUR AGAINST THE UDGMENT IN ST1192010 of J.M.F.C.- III, ALUVA REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- PRAKASAN, AGED35YEARS, VADASSERY HOUSE, KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA P.O. ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.SIDHIQUE SRI.M.M.ALIKUNJU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.P. VELAYUDHAN S/O.PAPPU, VALIYAPARAMBIL (H), KUNJATTUKARA EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA EAST VILLAGE - 683 101.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MONY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0406-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P No.984 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th June, 2014 ORDER
A cheque for 75,000/- issued by the revision petitioner herein in discharge of a debt incurred by him was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When he failed to make payment in spite of statutory notice caused by the complainant, a complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Aluva alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 during trial. Though the revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, he was found guilty by the learned Magistrate. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to Crl.R.P No.984 of 2014 2 pay a fine of 75,000/-, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, Ernakulam. But his appeal filed as Crl.A No.331 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), North Paravur by judgment dated 28.1.2013. Now he is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. On a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or scope to admit this revision to files. In fact, the revision petitioner did not turn up to make arguments on admission. However, I perused the case records for a decision whether this revision deserves admission to files., 5. The complainant examined as PW1 has given definite evidence proving the alleged transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred debt, and also proving the execution of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited, and thus the presumption available to the complainant under Crl.R.P No.984 of 2014 3 Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments stands not rebutted. Ext.P2 memo will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Ext.P3 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed in time. Thus compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution stands well proved. I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a debt recoverable under the law. It was bounced due to insufficiency of funds and the revision petitioner failed to make payment in spite of statutory notice. I find no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conviction or in the sentence. Fortunately for the revision petitioner, the trial court has not imposed any jail sentence. What is imposed is only a fine sentence limiting to the cheque amount. This sentence does not require any interference in revision. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, the revision petition is granted a reasonable time for six weeks to Crl.R.P No.984 of 2014 4 surrender before the trial court to make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge