K. SATHYANADHAN Vs. A. RAVEENDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No. 282/2013 and CMP No. 26/2015 on the files of the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 290/2012 on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. According to the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/ - to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Though this revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence on various grounds, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly canvassed the point that the appellate court went wrong by dismissing CMP No. 26/2015 filed by the petitioner under Sec. 391 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further contends that after the passing of the impugned order by the trial court a crime was registered against the complainant under Ss. 3 & 4 read with Sec. 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, by the Kozhikode Town police Station as crime No. 452/14 and during the search conducted at the office of the complainant, blank stamp papers and blank cheques bearing the signature of the revision petitioner were seized. According to the revision petitioner, the said documents are vital as well as significant to prove the innocence of the petitioner in the instant case also. In the above context, the revision petitioner filed the above CMP. But the court below dismissed the said application on a finding that the revision petitioner is trying to make out a case different from one already on record and also trying to fill up the lacuna. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, appeal is a continuation of the trial. Therefore, the appellate court ought to have allowed the application so as to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence to substantiate his case in defence.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings whereby the court below dismissed the CMP seeking an opportunity to adduce further evidence. Thus, the question raised in this revision petition revolves around the power of the appellate court under Sec. 391 of the Cr.P.C.