Kerala High Court
Pavithran K.V vs Nalinakshan M.V on 19 January, 2017
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/29TH POUSHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1589 of 2013 ()
--------------------------------
Crl.A 398/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY D
ST 274/2006 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAVITHRAN K.V.
S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT DEVI SADANAM, NEAR VAIYIL PEEDIKA,
ERANHOLI P.O., THALASSERY.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN
SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
SRI.K.S.MIZVER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & FORMAL PARTY:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. NALINAKSHAN M.V.
S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 'SREESHLAM', P.O.KADIRUR, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. K. PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No.1589 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of January 2017
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was convicted by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard.
3. When this matter has been taken up for hearing, the only argument advanced before this court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that even though the revision petitioner produced the judgment and decree in O.S. No.218 of 2008 dated 30.9.2010 of the Sub Court, Thalassery in respect of the transaction involved in this Crl.R.P..1589/2013 : 2 : case before the appellate court, the appellate court did not consider the said judgment before passing the judgment impugned and in the said circumstances, the judgment impugned cannot be sustained in view of the decision in Mohandas v. Abdul Azeez [2011(3) KHC 41]. It appears that the appellate court did not consider the effect of the above said judgment of the civil court in the same transaction in the light of the decision in Mohandas (supra) while deciding the appeal and in the said circumstances, I am inclined to remit the matter to the appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also no serious objection in remitting the matter to the appellate court for considering the appeal afresh. In view of the above reason, I set aside the Crl.R.P..1589/2013 : 3 : judgment of the appellate court and remit the matter to the appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides. If the appellant or the first respondent wants to adduce any further evidence in the matter, they will file appropriate application before the appellate court for the same within 10 days from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the appellate court.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the judgment of the appellate court and the matter is remitted to the appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law.
This being a matter of 2006, the appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as Crl.R.P..1589/2013 : 4 : possible and at any rate within six months from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the appellate court.
The parties shall appear before the appellate court on 13.3.2017.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/20.1.2017 // True Copy // PA to Judge