VINCENT PERERA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises certain crucial questions of law in the following factual background. The revisionist was the accused in S. T. Nos. 4911 of 2006, 4662 of 2007 and 4592 of 2007, on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. In all those cases he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant in all those cases was also one and the same person. Those three cases were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. Evidently, as per the said common judgment dated 22.11.2008 the revision petitioner was found guilty in all the three cases and he was convicted and imposed with similar but, separate sentence in all those cases. In fact, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months in each of those cases. On realisation of the amount of fine it was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1), Cr.P.C.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed a common appeal against the said order of conviction though there is no enabling provision for doing so. In other words, the revision petitioner was to file three separate appeals for challenging the conviction entered against him and the sentence imposed on him in the aforementioned three cases despite their joint trial and disposal by a common judgment. However, he has chosen only to file a common appeal. The said appeal was numbered as Cri. A. No. 989 of 2008 and for suspending the sentence the revision petitioner moved Cri. M. P. No. 4076 of 2008 in the said appeal. The sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail as per order dated 17.12.2008. Subsequently, the matter came up for final hearing and it was finally heard on 17.10.2014. It is evident from the impugned judgment itself that after finally hearing the matter on 17.10.2014 the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.10.2014. Evidently, taking note of the objection raised by the respondent-complainant with respect to the maintainability of the single appeal filed against the common order of conviction instead of filing three separate appeals against the aforesaid three cases disposed of by the common judgment, the appellate court framed the following point for consideration:-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.