The judgment clarifies that failure to file a timely complaint and the absence of full consideration invalidate a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

O R D E R

These Crl.Revision Petitions arises out of the judgments in Crl.Appeal Nos.343 and 344 of 2013, which in turn have arisen out of C.C.Nos.5351 and 5353 of 2010 respectively, on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam. The cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- and for Rs.49,000/- dated 31.3.2008 are the two dishonoured cheques in C.C.No.5351 of 2010, thus totalling to Rs.1,49,000/-. The cheques for Rs.1,10,000/- and for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 20.2.2008 are the two dishonoured cheques in relation to C.C.No.5353 of 2010, thus totaling to Rs.2,10,000/-. The total cheque amount covered by all these four cheques in the two complaints comes to Rs.3,59,000/-. Both the complaints were jointly tried together and disposed of as per a common judgment and the appeals arising therefrom filed by the accused challenging the conviction therefrom were also disposed of as per a common judgment.

2. In C.C.No.5351 of 2010, the trial court (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.IV, Ernakulam) has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.2,18,000/- with the default clause of simple imprisonment for 45 days and that the fine realised should be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. In C.C.No.5353 of 2010, the trial court (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.IV, Ernakulam) has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.3,10,000/- with a default clause of two months simple imprisonment and that the fine should be disbursed to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred separate appeals before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The appellate court concerned (Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 31.8.2016, had dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

3. It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sections

397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.Abraham.P.George, learned counsel appearing for R1/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State.

5. In Crl.R.P.No.1662 of 2016, Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, has raised various contentions to impugn the legality and correctness of the judgments rendered by both the courts below. One such contention he raised is that the institution of the complaint in the present C.C.No.5353 of 2010 was barred by limitation even as on the date of filing of the said complaint. According to him, based on the details in the certified copy of the complaint in C.C.No.5353 of 2010, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 22.9.2008, but that in the instant case, the complaint was actually filed before the trial court only on 21.10.2008 and that the complainant had never filed any application to condone the delay as mandated in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This argument of the revision petitioner has been recorded in paragraph 15 of the impugned appellate judgment. However, it appears that there are no effective findings on the said vital issue, so far as the impugned appellate court judgment is concerned. It is not clear whether the said point was raised before the trial court, but on a perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court would also reveal that this issue is not seen considered. Therefore, the fac