The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the notice period was validly calculated based on postal receipt, and the petitioner's refusal to claim the notice constituted valid service.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 967 of 2004 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 967 of 2004
CRA.45/1998 of I ADL.D.C., TRIVANDRUM CC.18/1995 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
SOBHAKUMAR, NANDANA HOUSE, KANJIRAMPARA, VATTIYOORKKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT(S):
1. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ALIYARKUNJU,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl. R.P. No. 967 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 30th day of October, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner in this Criminal R.P. is the accused in C.C.No. 18/1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad. The prosecution was one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 45/1998 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Thiruvananthapuram. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.
Crl. R.P. No. 967 of 2004 -: 2 :-
complainant to the petitioner was returned with the endorsement “unserved” on 26.12.1994 and therefore, the complainant could not have filed the complaint before 11.1.1995. But the complaint was filed on 10.1.1995. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable. The second contention is that there was no proper notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from the complainant to the petitioner.
Crl. R.P. No. 967 of 2004 -: 3 :-
issued with constructive notice. Therefore, both grounds do not appeal to me.
In the above circumstances, the Criminal R.P. is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 was maintainable given the notice was returned unserved.
Whether the petitioner received valid notice despite refusal to claim postal delivery.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sobhakumar
Abdul Ajeez
State of Kerala
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
