Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 38 OF 2023 IN CRA 146/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: THOMAS, AGED 52 YEARS S/O ANTONY, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI PANCHAYATH WARD-8, S.N.PURAM P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688582 BY ADVS. V.MAHENDRANATH P.T.SHEEJISH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 JACOB.P.T, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.THOMAS , RESIDING AT PANAVELIL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI PANCHAYATH WARD-16, S.N.PURAM P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688582 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. RENJITH GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2023
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.110 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Alappuzha. The case originated on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 1 st respondent and towards discharge of that liability, had issued a cheque dated 27.09.2017. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for the reason ‘account blocked, situation covered in 2015’. In spite of the 1st respondent issuing lawyer notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, the petitioner failed to make the payment.
2. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence
and the legal contentions found the petitioner guilty and thereupon convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The fine, if realised, was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although
petitioner filed an appeal, the same was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved, this revision petition is filed.
3. Even though the learned Counsel for the
petitioner raised various contentions in his attempt to assail the findings of the courts below, on careful scrutiny of the judgments of the trial and the appellate courts, I find that the evidence was properly appreciated and the law, correctly applied. As such, there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings, in exercise of the revisional power vested with this Court.
4. At this point, learned Counsel for the
petitioner put forth an alternative plea that, atleast, the time limit for remitting the fine amount ought to be extended. I find the said request to be reasonable, the offence under Section 138 being quasi-civil in nature.
5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition
is dismissed and the time limit for remitting the fine amount is extended by four months from today. The petitioner shall remit/pay the fine amount within the extended period and appear before the trial court for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, within the extended time limit, failing which the petitioner
shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The time limit having been extended by four months, the Non Bailable Warrant, if any pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for the said period. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/15-2 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 38/2023 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1/12/2020 IN ST NO. 110/2019 IN THE FILE OF JFCM CORT-II ALAPPUZHA TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE