Allowed

P.K.Remani v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Kerala HC28 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/412/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against the dismissal of a delay condonation petition. The court set aside the lower court's order and directed the appellate court to withdraw the appeal and dispose of it on merits within six months, noting the failure to accept valid reasons for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the delay condonation petition is set aside; the petition is allowed; the appellate court is directed to withdraw the appeal and dispose of it on merits within six months.

P.K.Remani Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 412 of 2012 (B)

¶6

-----------------------------(IN CRMP.1330/2011 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM IN ST.167/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- III, KOLLAM )

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

P.K.REMANI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.K.P.BABU, ADVENTIST HOME, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶10

SMT.DHANYA S.DHARAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶12

1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., NAZEEMA COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, B.S.VIMAL KRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 34 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

R1 BY SRI. PHILIP T.VARGHESE R1 BY SRI. THOMAS T.VARGHESE R1 BY SMT. ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R2 BY SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMV

¶17

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

- - - - Crl.R.P. No. 412 of 2012

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2012.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was found guilty. She was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶22

In short, the case of the complainant was that the accused as the guarantor and her husband as the borrower had executed an agreement in favour of the complainant for purchase of a vehicle and they defaulted in payment of monthly instalments. In order to discharge the debt, the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque, which on presentation bounced for want of funds in the account of

¶23

Crl.R.P.412/2012. 2

¶24

the accused. Statutory notice issued to the accused did not invoke any reply, nor was the amount paid. Hence the complaint was laid.

¶25

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial court. On appearance of the accused, particulars of the offence were read out to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and had Exts.P1 to P7 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her and stated that when she applied for the loan, she gave signed blank cheque and signed white paper, but the loan was not sanctioned. Though she demanded back the signed blank cheque etc., they were not returned. However, she chose to adduce no evidence in support of her case. On an appreciation of the

¶26

Crl.R.P.412/2012. 3

¶27

evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the offence has been made out and accordingly she was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.

¶28

The accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam. Since the appeal was out of time, the accused filed Crl.M.P. 1330 of 2011 to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. The said petition was opposed by the respondent and the court below dismissed the petition and consequently the appeal also. This revision petition is directed against the said order.

¶29

After having gone through the orders of the courts below, it is felt that the dismissal of the delay condonation petition was not justified and the court below ought to have condoned the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The reason given by the petitioner before the court below for the delay was that the petitioner's husband was ill and therefore she could not file the appeal

¶30

Crl.R.P.412/2012. 4

¶31

within the stipulated time. The court below was of the opinion that since no documents were produced by the accused to prove the illness of her husband, the reason could not be accepted.

¶32

The court below ought to have noticed that the appellant had suffered an order of conviction and sentence and it is difficult to believe she would not have taken steps for filing the appeal in time taking the risk of having it dismissed for delay.

¶33

Even otherwise, the court below should have taken care to dispose of the appeal on merits, instead of dismissing the delay condonation petition and consequently the appeal also.

¶34

In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order dismissing the delay condonation petition is set aside and the said petition stands allowed. The appellate court is directed to take back the appeal on file and dispose

¶35

Crl.R.P.412/2012.

¶36

¶37

of the same in accordance with law. The appellate court may make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶39

sb.

P.K.Remani v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Remani v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.N.Surendrakumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

K.C.Paulose Vs K.K.Kunju

Subair Vs Kunhaidru Pattazhi

Moncy Cherian Vs George Daniel

P.Salim Vs v.B.Sreedevi and Another

Antony M.M Vs Kerala State