IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2072 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.42/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-I,TRIVANDRUM CC.413/2002414/2002 AND 415/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARK LIST CASES) TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,VASUDEVA VILASOM, ALAMKODU,AMBALATHINKARA(PO),KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.MANMADHAN NAIR,T.C.28/703,MANDANADU LANE,VALIYASALAI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.TRANSMATIC SYSTEMS LTD.,GOLF LINKS ROAD,JAWAHAR NAGAR(P.O),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP; BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,G.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SENIOR EXECUTIVE MARKETING. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2072 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal No.42 of 2005. Respondent No.1 filed three complaints against petitioners for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cases were taken on file by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C.No.413 of 2002, 414 of 2002 and 415 of 2002. Learned magistrate tried the cases jointly and disposed of the same as per common judgment dated 16.12.2004 convicting and sentencing petitioners for imprisonment and directing payment of compensation. Petitioners preferred a single appeal against conviction and sentence in all the cases as Crl.Appeal No.42 of 2005. When that appeal came up for hearing on 9.12.2008 there was no representation for petitioners/appellants. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal for the reason that a single appeal is not maintainable against common judgment of learned magistrate convicting petitioners in three different cases though tried jointly. 2. I heard counsel on both sides and Public Prosecutor. 3. Only request made in this revision is that petitioners may be given an opportunity to file separate appeals against conviction and sentence. Crl.Appeal No.2072/2009 2 4. Assuming that a single appeal was not maintainable I think the proper course would have been to permit petitioners to confine the appeal already filed to any one of the cases with liberty to them to file separate appeals in respect of the other two cases. May be because the petitioners/appellants and counsel were not present in the appellate court when the appeal was taken up for hearing, there was no occasion for learned Additional Sessions Judge to impress upon the petitioners/appellants or their counsel about the need of filing separate appeals. 5. Having heard the counsel on both sides and considering the circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that the proper course is to remit the matter to the court below So that, it will be open to the petitioners to confine the appeal already filed to any one of the cases and prefer separate appeals in respect of other two cases if the petitioners are otherwise entitled to that course. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.Appeal No.42 of 2005 is set aside and that appeal is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners if they are so advised to confine Crl.Appeal No.42 of 2005 to any one of the cases involved and file separate appeals in respect of other cases subject ofcourse to the period of limitation for filing Crl.Appeal No.2072/2009 3 appeals which is a matter the appellate court has to consider on merits. Execution of warrant if any against petitioners will stand in abeyance for two months from this day or till appropriate orders on the appeals if any preferred are passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks