Kerala High Court
Jerone. N.J vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 499 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2024 IN
Crl.A NO.91 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT.-TRIAL
OF ABKARI ACT CASES/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
NEYYATTINKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
03.04.2023 IN ST NO.12 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -V, NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLAT/ACCUSED:
JERONE. N.J
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. NEPOLEON. M.,
T.C.NO.14/1910 (3), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695034
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 BABY GOMAZ
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY GOMAZ, EMMANUEL, BP
IX/450, AZHIPPIL, ANTHIYOOR, BALARAMAPURAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 695501
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
2
BY ADVS.
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court.
2. The Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.12/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Neyyattinkara. 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 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 4 of Rs.10,000/-. Further the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner is directed to take steps for issuing a distress warrant against the asset of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara as Crl. Appeal No. 91/2023. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified 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. I also heard the counsel appearing for Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 5 the 2nd respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner raised two points. The counsel submitted that the complainant failed to prove the source to lend an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. This aspect was specifically cross- examined by the counsel for the complainant when PW1 was in the box is the submission. The appellate court considered the matter in detail in paragraph No.11 of the judgment. It will be better to extract the same:
"It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that PWI had no source of income at the time of alleged lending of money. Several questions were put to PW1 in the cross-examination with respect to this. PW1 was working abroad. Thereafter he was running textile business at Balaramapuram. PW1 was about to purchase a plot of land. His wife had availed loan from provident fund. He had pledged gold ornarments for Rs. 3,00,000/- and also borrowed Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 6 Rs.2,00,000/- from his personal account. He has further explained that he pledged the gold with Canara bank, Balaramapuram branch and also UCO Bank. PW1 had deposed that the loan was given on an assurance given by the appellant that the amount will be repaid from his chitty amount. PW1 has not purchased the property so far and discharged the liability of gold loan. PW1 had to stop the textile business. Therefore, he has shown that he had source of income. In view of the admission that appellant had borrowed money from PW1 and had executed cheque, the burden is on accused to rebut the presumption U/S 139 of the N.I. Act. There was no reply for the lawyer notice issued by PW1. Appellant did not call upon PW1 to pay off debt received from him."
5. I see no reason to interfere with the above findings. PW1 was working abroad and he was running a textile business also. It is also the case of PW1 that he was about to purchase a plot of land. It Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 7 is also deposed by him that his wife had availed a loan from provident fund. If these evidence is available, the burden shifted to the accused disprove the same. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that D1 and D2 are the chief affidavit and cross-examination of PW1 in two other cases. In which also he is the complainant and the proceedings was also under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to the petitioner such a huge amount cannot be raised by PW1. I cannot agree with that contention. First of all, this is a revision filed by the petitioner. Two courts concurrently found against the petitioner. The finding of facts need not be interfered by this Court. Moreover, there is evidence to show that PW1 has got source. That contention is also not sustainable.
6. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 8 with the 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 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 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act. As far as the sentence is concerned, the sentence is already modified by the appellate court. The sentence remains is to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024 2025:KER:49413 9 a fine of Rs.7,00,000/- with a default sentence. I see no reason to interfere with the same also.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Considering the request of the revision petitioner, twelve months time is granted to pay the fine amount and to serve the sentence. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.
If any amount is already deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted towards the fine amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 2 nd respondent, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE