Dismissed

Siju Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2024Crl.Rev.Pet/1113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged enhancement of default sentence by first appellate court from one to three months, arguing no cross appeal was filed. Court held the enhancement was within permissible limits and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. Accused granted three months to appear before trial court for receiving substantive sentence and payment of fine.

Siju Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1113 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946

¶7

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1113 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2023 IN CRA NO.197 OF 2019 OF

¶9

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT)-II, KOTTAYAM / I ADDITIONAL

¶10

MACT, KOTTAYAM

¶11

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2019 IN ST NO.350 OF 2016 OF CHIEF

¶12

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOTTAYAM

¶13

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶14

SIJU VARGHESE, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. VARGHESE MARANGATTU HOUSE, UPUTHARA P.O.
IDUKKI, PIN - 685505
BY ADV P.S.SIDHARTHAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶17

2RAFEEK RAZZAK,
AGED 41 YEARS,

¶18

S/O. RAZZAK THOTTATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPAIKKADU P.O.
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686016
BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶19

SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1113 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

It is against the concurrent judgment of
conviction and order of sentence in a prosecution
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, the accused came up, mainly on the reason that
the first appellate court has committed a grave
mistake by enhancing the default sentence.
Originally, the default sentence ordered by the trial
court comes to one month. But it has been enhanced

¶25

to three months default sentence by the first

¶26

appellate court. It is submitted that no such

¶27

extension can be granted, unless there is a cross

¶28

appeal. No such cross appeal was filed in this case.
It is a case wherein the first appellate court has
reduced and set aside the substantive sentence for

¶29

three months to till the rising of the court by

¶30

confining the sentence of fine with the default

¶31

sentence. Hence, it is within the permissible limit
of the first appellate court. There is no reason to

¶32

interfere with the said sentence. No sufficient

¶33

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1113 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

reason was brought to the notice of this court in
order to interfere with the judgment of conviction.
But having regard to the submission made by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, three

¶36

months time is granted to the revision petitioner to
appear before the trial court to receive the
substantive sentence till the rising of the court and
the payment of fine amount. Till that time, no
coercive steps shall be taken. He shall appear
before the trial court within that time.

¶37

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand

¶38

dismissed accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.SOMARAJAN

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

msp

Siju Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siju Varghese v. State of Kerala

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

Sarath Prabha Vs Sijo Paul

Suma Christal Vs Upendran

Ponnudhurai Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed a Shereef Vs Shibu J

Anoop E Vs Smirti

Amina Beevi Vs Sonu.R. Jose