IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 756 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.276/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM CC.279/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PAPPACHAN,S/O.THOMAS, THEKKEPLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU,KARAVALOOR VILLAGE, KARAVALOOR , PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRADAS,S/O.MADHAVAN,PREMAVILASAM VEEDU,NETTAYAM,NEDIYARA,YEROOR VILLAGE, PAPTHAMAPURAM TALUK 691 332. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.756 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011. ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the appeal was disposed by the appellate court without hearing himself or his counsel. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this is a matter to be remitted back to the appellate court for fresh consideration. 3. On a reading of paragraph 10 and 16 of the appellate court judgment it is clear that the appeal was disposed without hearing either the revision petitioner or his counsel. But it is discernible from the judgment that though, several opportunities were given and notice were sent to the revision petitioner/appellant, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the appellate court to argue the matter. From the above fact, it appears that there is some negligence from the part of the revision petitioner/appellant also. However, an appeal is the continuation of trial and therefore, the opportunity of the revision petitioner to get re-appreciated the evidence on record, by the superior court is denied. Therefore, according to me, the matter Crl.R.P.NO.756 OF 2011 2 is liable to be remitted back to the appellate court for fresh consideration but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the judgment dated 3.12.10 in Crl. Appeal No.276 of 2006 of the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Kollam and remanded the matter back to the same court for fresh consideration and disposal after hearing the revision petitioner, on condition that the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the cheque amount in the trial court, within two months from today. The petitioner is further directed to produce the receipt, showing the remittance of the above amount, before the appellate court within seven days from the date of remittance of the amount and on producing the receipt, the appellate court is directed to take up the appeal for further consideration and dispose the same in accordance with the procedure and law after hearing the revision petitioner as well as the respondent/complainant, within three months from the date of producing the receipt of the trial court. Coercive steps if any pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm