High Court at Ernakulam addressed Criminal Revision Petition challenging conviction in cheque dishonour case. Allowed extension of six months for remittance of fine. Dispensed with notice and deferred coercive steps pending payment.
Extension of six months for fine remittance; deferral of coercive recovery steps.
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.
Crl.RP.750/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.750 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 361/2017 DATED 29-06-2019 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 4379/2015 DATED 28-11-2017 OF JMFC(SPECIAL COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES (TEMPORA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ANTONY C.T., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CHUTHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-18, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.JESNA M.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SONY P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, PADMATTUMMEL HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ELAMAKKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-20, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP. B.JAYASURYA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.RP.750/2020
2
V.G.ARUN, J.
CRL.R.P.No. 750 of 2020
Dated this the 22nd day of December , 2020
O R D E R
The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.4379 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act Cases), Ernakulam. The finding of guilt and conviction stands modified by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2017 of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and
the sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of court. The fine amount of Rs.80,000/- imposed by the trial court was retained as such.
2. The case against the revision petitioner originated from the complaint filed by the first respondent, alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation was that, towards discharge of a debt, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.80,000/-
in favour of the first respondent, which, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of
Crl.RP.750/2020
3
funds. Even though statutory notice was issued, calling upon the revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount, the demand was not met.
3. The trial court, after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the first respondent, found the cheque to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the revision petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On realisation, the fine was directed to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
4 . The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner after intensive arguments, which did not find favour with the court, requested that at least the time limit for remittance of the fine amount may be extended. I find the request to be reasonable. The cheque being of the year 2011, the time limit for payment of the cheque amount can be extended only by six months. In view of
Crl.RP.750/2020
4
the limited relief being granted, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner shall remit the fine amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) within six months from today. On remittance, the amount shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner shall pay the fine before expiry of the six month period, failing which the reliefs granted under this judgment will stand withdrawn. In view of the time granted by this Court, coercive steps based on the impugned judgments, shall be deferred for a period of six months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner's request for extension of time limit to remit the fine was reasonable.
Whether coercive recovery steps should be deferred pending remittance of the fine.
Whether notice to the first respondent must be issued before granting extension of time.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ANTONY C.T.
SONY P.J.
THE STATE OF KERALA
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
