Kerala High Court
Jayakumaran K vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:57938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TH
MONDAY, THE 4 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2022 IN Crl.A NO.141
OF 2019 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI, AND
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2019 IN ST NO.1876 OF 2016 ON THE
FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
JAYAKUMARAN K.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, POURNAMI HOUSE, THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676636
BY ADV SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 RATHULIYA C.P.,
W/O. VIJAYAN VELUTHEDATH, MELETHODI
HOUSE,PAIJATTINPAI,CHELAMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673634
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57938
CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
Crl Rev. Pet No.371 of 2023
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2022 in Crl.Appeal No.141/2019 by the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. Petitioner is the complainant in ST No.1876/2016 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. It was a prosecution initiated by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, as per judgment dated 02.07.2019 in ST No.1876/2016. The 2nd respondent was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. For non-payment of the compensation amount, there is a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the 2nd respondent filed Crl.Appeal before the appellate court. As per the impugned judgment, the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, remanded the case to the trial court, mainly for the reason that, cheque is to be sent 2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 3 for expert opinion. Aggrieved by the remand order, this revision is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the complainant before the trial court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The short point raised by the revision petitioner is that, earlier, the revision petitioner, who is the complainant, filed an application before the learned Magistrate for sending the disputed cheque for expert opinion and the same was dismissed as per Annexure-A1 produced in this revision. The main reason for dismissing that application is that, there are no contemporaneous documents which contain the signature of the accused for comparison. It is also submitted that the accused has not produced any documents for comparison. There is no appearance for the 2nd respondent, even though notice is served.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the revision petitioner. This Court perused the impugned order also. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order:
" 11. Accused has disputed the signature in Ext.P1 cheque. There is specific suggestion put to PW1 in cross- examination that the signature in Ext. P1 cheque is not of the accused. Accused has filed a statement during examination u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. She has stated in it as 2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 4 follows. 'അന്യായകാരനിൽ നിന്നും ഞാൻ പണം കൈപ്പറ്റുകയോ ചെക്ക് ഒപ്പു വെച്ച് നൽകുകയോ ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല. She has further stated as follows എൻ്റെ പേരിലെ ചെക്ക് എന്റെ ഭർത്താവ് അന്യായക്കാരന് ഒപ്പിട്ടു നൽകിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്ന് എനിക്ക് യാതൊരു അറിവും ഇല്ല. ഞാൻ ഒരു തരത്തിലും അന്യായക്കാരനിൽ നിന്നും പണം കൈപ്പറ്റുകയോ, ചെക്ക് ഒപ്പിട്ടു നല്കുകയുണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല.
Considering the case of both sides and the evidence on record, the genuineness of signature in Ext. P1 cheque is crucial in this case. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove complainant's case, in view of the discrepancies in his evidence. The complainant had filed Crl. M.P 997/2017 to obtain expert opinion regarding the signature in Ext.P1 cheque. The said petition was dismissed by the court below for the reason that merely proving the signature in the document would not prove execution of the document by the accused. According to the court below, sending the document to Forensic Science laboratory may show signature in the document is of accused person but the same would not prove execution of the disputed document by the accused. It was also stated that no admitted contemporaneous documents which contain signature of the accused were available for comparison. This is a case wherein accused specifically denied the signature in the cheque. The complainant could not prove the purpose for which the amount was borrowed as stated by him. There is inconsistency in his case as to the source of amount given to him. Originally he had a case that he borrowed the entire amount from PW2 whereas the evidence 2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 5 shows that he obtained only ₹4,00,000/- from PW2. The court below mainly relied on the presumption u/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act to convict the accused. Court below held that execution was proved and therefore presumption u/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act will come into play. The court below found that accused failed to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence or by relying on the materials tendered by the complainant. This finding is not correct. There are discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant. Complainant as PW1 has admitted that there is difference between the signature in Ext.P1 cheque and that in the Ext.P4 acknowledgment card of demand notice. The complainant has admitted that the entries in the cheque were written by him. In such circumstances, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and Exts. P1 to P7 documents are not sufficient to prove execution of the cheque. The evidence as to genuineness of signature in Ext. P1 cheque is of material importance in such circumstances. As per section 73 of Evidence Act court has power to compare the signature and come to a finding as to its genuineness. However, as held by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Aravindakshan Nair Vs ESSen Bankers (2007(3) KHC 295) it will be more prudent to require the opinion of the expert. Therefore the court below ought to have allowed the petition to obtain expert opinion on the signature in the cheque. Complainant should have been given opportunity to produce contemporaneous documents containing signature of accused, if so required.
2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 6
12. The evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove execution of cheque, to attract section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is dispute regarding the signature in Ext.P1 cheque. The materials now available on record, are not sufficient to arrive at conclusion regarding the genuineness of the signature in the cheque. A correct finding as to drawing of the cheque by the accused can be rendered after considering the expert opinion regarding the signature in the cheque. An opportunity is to be given to the complainant to prove the genuineness of the signature in Ext.P1 cheque. For the said purpose, case is to be remanded back to the court below. The points are answered accordingly."
5. The Appellate Court considered all the contentions of the revision petitioner and remanded the matter. A perusal of paragraph Nos./11 & 12 would show that it is a speaking order. The main apprehension of the revision petitioner is that, the intention of the 2nd respondent is to drag the matter further. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case immediately and also to take necessary steps to forward the disputed cheque for expert opinion immediately.
Therefore, this revision is disposed of with the following directions:
2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 7
1. The judgment dated 30.07.2022 in Crl.Appeal No.141/2019 by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri is confirmed.
2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, is directed to take necessary steps to send the disputed signature in the cheque to the expert immediately.
3. The experts should be directed to submit the report immediately.
4. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the case after getting the expert opinion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the expert.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG 2025:KER:57938 CRL.REV.PET NO.371 OF 2023 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 371/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.9117/2017 IN S.T.NO.
1876/2016 OF THE JFCM COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 28.11.2017