Dismissed

Tony Paul v. v.Anilkumar

Kerala HC27 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/93/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petitioner, already convicted and sentenced, filed a revision petition not on merits but merely to seek an extension to remit the fine. The High Court dismissed the petition but, taking a lenient view of the petitioner's inability to pay Rs. 5.5 lakhs immediately, granted an additional three months to remit the amount.

What did the court decide?

The revision petitioner is granted three months from today to remit a fine of Rs. 5,50,000/-. No further time for remitting the fine shall be granted.

Tony Paul Vs v.Anilkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.93 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 206/2019 DATED 15-11-2019 OF COURT OF SESSION, PALAKKAD DIVISION

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 107/2017 DATED 18-09-2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, CHITTUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

TONY PAUL

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS S/O. PAILO, ERNAD HOUSE, VAKKALOR, ELAVAMPADAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1 V.ANILKUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O. VASU, 1/37D, KACHERIMEDU, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101

¶14

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

¶15

SRI C K PRASAD-PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON 27.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.93/2020

¶19

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.107/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First

¶23

Class Magistrate-II, Chittoor.

¶24

The aforesaid case was instituted upon the complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶25

The petitioner appeared before the trial court on receiving summons. When the particulars of the offence were read over to him and explained to him, the petitioner pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that the plea made by the petitioner was voluntary and therefore, it was accepted. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.93/2020

¶27

¶28

under Section 138 of the Act.

¶29

The petitioner and the complainant had filed a joint statement before the trial court. As per the joint statement, the accused had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in instalments. On the basis of that joint statement, the trial court sentenced the petitioner/accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,50,000/-. He was directed to remit the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of six months and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/within a period of nine months from the date of the judgment. Learned Magistrate also directed that, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. It was also directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶30

The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment of the trial court by filing O.P.(Crl) No.579/2018 before this Court. His plea before this Court was that the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure prescribed for plea bargaining. As per the judgment dated 21.03.2019, this Court dismissed the aforesaid original petition finding that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.93/2020

¶32

¶33

the offence and that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced not on the basis of plea bargaining but he was convicted and sentenced on the basis of the voluntary plea made by him.

¶34

After the disposal of O.P.(Crl) No.579/2018 by this

¶35

Court, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.206/2019 before the Court of Session, Palakkad challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. There was a delay of 709 days in filing the aforesaid appeal. The appellate court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal also stating that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 375 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid judgment of the appellate court is challenged by the accused in this revision petition.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

The revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused is

¶38

clearly an abuse of process of the court. Conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court

¶39

were affirmed by this Court as per the judgment in O.P.(Crl)

¶40

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.93/2020

¶42

No.579/2018. It was, thereafter, the petitioner approached the appellate court challenging the very same order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in the aforesaid situation, did not argue the revision petition on merits. He only prayed that the petitioner may be given some time to remit the fine amount in the trial court.

¶44

Considering the conduct of the petitioner, the prayer for granting time to remit the fine amount in the trial court should have been rejected by this Court. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards fine, taking a lenient view, I find that a period of three months can be granted to him to pay the fine amount.

¶45

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted a period of three months from today to remit the fine amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand only) in the trial court. It is made clear that he will not

¶46

be granted any further time for remitting the fine amount in the

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.93/2020

¶48

¶49

trial court and that no application for that purpose would be entertained. If the fine amount is not remitted within the period

¶50

of three months from today, the trial court shall take appropriate

¶51

steps to execute the sentence against the petitioner.

¶52

(sd/-)

¶53

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶54

jsr

¶55

True Copy

¶56

PS to Judge

Tony Paul v. v.Anilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tony Paul v. v.Anilkumar

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

Hakeem Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.M Vs C.Mohanan

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Viswanathan Nechully Vs State of Kerala

Sudhamol P.V. Vs Mariamma Varghese

K.C.Mathew Vs Alleppey Parcel Service