Valsa Augustin v. A.A. Lazar and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Mary Joseph, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: Revisions fail and are dismissed in limine.
Final Disposition: Dismissed in limine

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Valsa Augustin

Respondents

A.A. Lazar
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G. Hariharan
• Sri Praveen H.

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
• Sri M.P. Prasanth (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in three connected criminal revision petitions (CRL.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019) heard by the single-judge bench of Justice Mary Joseph, examines concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) against the revision petitioner, Valsa Augustin. The revisions arise from judgments of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathoor, and the II Additional Court of Sessions, Palakkad, dated 14.09.2017 and 16.01.2019, convicting the accused for issuing a cheque in discharge of a debt and imposing a fine at the minimum prescribed by the NI Act. The evidence consists of PW1 (the complainant) and documentary Exts. P1–P6. The accused admitted the signature on Ext. P1, triggering presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act in favor of the complainant that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt for consideration. The accused failed to rebut these presumptions; cross-examination did not tilt the balance. The appellate and trial courts upheld guilt. The revisions were heard after mediation failed; the counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate jurisdictional errors. Relying on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, the court held that revisions in NI Act cases are liable to fail, and dismissed the revisions in limine.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act in favor of the holder; burden on the accused to rebut.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitions argued on merits, but the counsel did not point out any jurisdictional error in the findings of guilt under Section 138 NI Act; after failed mediation, the matter was argued on merits, yet no error was demonstrated in the lower court's conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

Cited evidence from PW1 and Exts. P1–P6; reliance on presumptions under NI Act sections 118/139 and the accused's failure to rebut; urged that the conviction and sentence be sustained.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar	2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)	Positive	Cited by the court to support dismissal of revisions in NI Act cases; authority that revisions in these contexts are prone to fail.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 526 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 235/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD, ``` ``` ST 123/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, ``` ## **`ALATHUR, PALAKKAD`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:`** ``` VALSA AUGUSTIN, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** - `1 A.A LAZAR,AGED 56 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET, VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 001.` - `2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031. R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.529/2019, AND 528/2019, THE COURT ON 02.11.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:2:- ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 529 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 233/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD, ``` ``` ST 129/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, ``` ## **`ALATHUR, PALAKKAD`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:`** ``` VALSA AUGUSTIN,AGED 46 YEARS W/O AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN ``` ``` SRI.PRAVEEN.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** ``` 1A.A.LAZAR, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET, VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001. ``` - `2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.` ``` R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ``` R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.526/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON02.11.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:3:- ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 528 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 234/2017 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD, ``` ``` ST 117/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, ``` ## **`ALATHUR, PALAKKAD`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:`** ``` VALSA AUGUSTIN,AGED 46 YEARS W/O AUGUSTIN, FLAT NO.602, PARADISE TOWER, EAST NADA, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** ``` 1A.A.LAZAR, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, MOSCO STREET, VALLANGI, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001 ``` - `2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.` ``` R1 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` - `R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.M.P. PRASANTH` ## **`THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR`** ``` ADMISSIONON 13.09.2021,ALONGWITH Crl.Rev.Pet.526/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 02.11.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:4:- ## MARY JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2021 ## O R D E R The above revisions are filed against the concurrent finding of guilt of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') and the orders of conviction and sentence passed consequently by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Alathoor and II Additional Court of Sessions, Palakkad by judgments respectively dated 14.09.2017 and 16.01.2019. 2. Notice on admission was ordered in the revisions following which, the respondent entered appearance through Adv.Johnson Varikkappallil. On the request of the respective counsel, parties were sent for mediation, but it ended unsuccessfully. Therefore, the counsel for the revision petitioner was heard in detail on merits of the revision. The learned counsel failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the findings of the courts below affirmatively on guilt of the accused under Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:5:- Section 138 N.I Act and passing of orders of conviction and sentence. 3. The evidence in the case on hand incorporates the oral evidence tendered by the complainant as PW1 and documentary evidence consisting of Exts.P1 to P6. On a scrutiny of the evidence it is revealed that accused has not disputed the authorship of signature found affixed in Ext.P1 cheque. It is further convinced from the evidence on record that the accused had issued the disputed cheque to the complainant. When issuance of the cheque and affixture of signature therein were admitted by the accused, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 N.I. Act would operate to the benefit of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a valid debt and therefore is supported by consideration. Then the accused has to take the burden to rebut the presumption. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence to rebut the presumption. Cross examination of PW1 by the accused also did not serve the purpose of bringing any preponderance of probabilities in evidence to disbelieve the case put forth by the complainant. In Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:6:- the above context, the accused was found guilty under Section 138 N.I. Act and the judgment when assailed, the finding was confirmed by the appellate court. 4. As far as the sentence imposed is concerned for the reason that the courts below have imposed only fine which is only equivalent to the amount covered by the cheque. The sentence imposed being the minimum prescribed by N.I.Act, there is no scope for modification of the same. As held by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)] the revisions are only liable to fail in the context of the cases. Revisions fail and are dismissed in limine. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE. ttb Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:7:- Crl.R.P. Nos. 526, 528 & 529 of 2019 -:8:-