Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 170 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2017 IN CRA NO.505/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-V, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2013 IN CC NO.90/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VII, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ACHAMMA JOSE W/O. AJ GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS,BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S ARAYATHEL ENTERPRISES, THALAPPARA, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 005.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDEN T S / COMPLAINANT & STAT E :
1 G.RATHINAM S/O. R.GOVINDAN, AGED 50 YEARS,BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BHARATHI COATINGS, VYTILLA,ERNAKULAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2024,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.170 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 25.09.2013 in C.C.No.90/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Ernakulam, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.505/2013.
2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.90/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Ernakulam. It was a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that, in partial discharge of the debt to the complainant, the accused issued a cheque and when the cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured. When the statutory notice was issued, the accused did not pay the amount. Hence the complaint was filed.
4. To substantiate the case, one witness was examined on the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. No witness was examined on the side of the defence and no exhibits were also marked from her side. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence and she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and she was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Criminal Appeal No.505/2013 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge-V considered the appeal and dismissed the same. Hence this criminal revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 7. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court perused the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the complainant. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of fact by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore the conviction imposed by the trial court is to be confirmed. As far as sentence is concerned, the sentence is only to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with default sentence. I see no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Therefore there is no merit in this case. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted for paying the amount. Considering the facts and circumstances, I think four months’ time can be given for paying the compensation and to undergo the imprisonment till rising of the court.
Therefore, this criminal revision petition is disposed of with following directions:
1. The conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.90/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Ernakulam, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.505/2013, is upheld.
2. The revision petitioner is given four months’ time to pay the compensation and to undergo the sentence as ordered by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court. If any amount is already deposited, the revision petitioner need to pay only the balance amount.
