Kerala High Court
Crl.Rev.Pet/1420/2019 of SHIJIN, Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1420 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.209 IN CRL.A.NO.289/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1420 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.209 IN CRL.A.NO.289/2017 ON THEFILE OF THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,PALAKKAD DIVISION FROM JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2017 IN C.C.NO.44/2017ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, CHITTUR.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHIJIN,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O. BHAHULEYAN CHUNGTH HOUSE, PADIYAM P.O.,PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR 680 641.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMARSRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2AJITHKUMAR T.R.,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, THOTTUPURA HOUSE,P.O. NATTIKA, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR 680 566.
BY ADV.
PP AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The appellant challenges the concurrentfinding of guilt under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.44/2017as confirmed in Crl.A.No.289/2017 of theSessions Court, Palakkad Division (III -Additional District and Sessions Judge).
2. The complainant alleged that towardsthe discharge of a legally enforceable debt,accused executed and delivered a cheque for asum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh FiftyThousand only). It was presented for collectionand was returned dishonoured. A statutorynotice was issued, which was not replied by theaccused. Hence the complaint was laid.
3. The accused appeared before theMagistrate and disputed the claim of thecomplainant. On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.There was no defence evidence.
4. The contention of the accused wasthat, the complainant was a financier and thathe had no financial capacity to pay the chequeamount. It was also contended that one AdbulJabbar had availed a loan from the complainantand a blank cheque of the accused was given assecurity. Though such a defence was set up,this was not supported by evidence. AdbulJabbar was not examined. The contention of theaccused that the complainant did not have thefinancial capacity cannot be believed in thelight of the specific contention that thecomplainant was a financier. There was no replyto the statutory notice also.
5. Having considered these facts, theCourt below arrived at a conclusion that theaccused has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,86,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand only) witha default sentence. The Lower Appellate Courtre-evaluated the entire evidence and concurredwith the conclusions arrived by the Courtbelow.
6. Having considered the entire facts asmentioned above, I am not inclined to interferein the concurrent findings of fact entered into bythe Trial Court. Hence the revision petition isdismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.
7. However, considering the entire facts, Iam inclined to grant three months time to therevision petitioner to pay the fine ofRs.1,86,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousandonly). The execution of the above sentence shall bedeferred for a period of three months from today.If the fine is not remitted in the meanwhile, theTrial Court shall initiate appropriate proceedings VPK
for execution of sentence after the expiry of three months from today.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMASJUDGE