Kerala High Court
Sulaikha vs Shafeeq on 1 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
1
2025:KER:47749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 232 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2023 IN Crl.A
NO.76 OF 2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 15.11.2022 IN ST NO.145 OF 2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SULAIKHA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O SAKEER, KARUTHANATHODI HOUSE, RATTAKKOLLY,
KALPETTA POST, KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SHAFEEQ
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KASSIM, PICHAN HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPPAINAD
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD, PIN - 673577
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
2
2025:KER:47749
BY ADV.
SMT. S. SEETHA, SENIOR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
3
2025:KER:47749
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"to admit this Crl. R.P. and call for the records from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta in STC No.145/2019 and further be pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence confirmed in Crl. Appeal No.76/2022 on the files of Sessions Court, Kalpetta, and be further be pleased to set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquit the Petitioner/accused by allowing this petition."[SIC]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C No.145/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024 4 2025:KER:47749 Court, Kalpetta. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. It was also made clear that the cheque amount with interest shall not exceed twice the cheque amount. The petitioner was also directed to pay the fine amount if realised, to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024 5 2025:KER:47749 before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re- appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024 6 2025:KER:47749 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation with a default sentence. It was also made clear that the cheque amount with interest shall not exceed twice the cheque amount. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following manner:
1. The conviction imposed on the petitioner as per the Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024 7 2025:KER:47749 impugned judgment is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is set aside, and the revision petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. It is also made clear that the cheque amount with interest shall not exceed twice the cheque amount. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. If the compensation amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 1 st respondent under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
8
2025:KER:47749
4. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.
5. If any amount is already deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted towards the compensation/fine amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 1st Respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM