Kerala High Court
Suvarnakumari vs Vijayamma Krishnankutty on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:48760
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. 149 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2021 IN Crl.A
NO.138 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,
MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2018
IN ST NO.18 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
SUVARNAKUMARI
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADMINISTRATOR,
ANJANEYA SARASWATHI VIDHYA MANDIR,
VAIPUR P.O., MALLPPALLY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689588
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SHRI.GEETHU KRISHNAN
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 VIJAYAMMA KRISHNANKUTTY
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O KRISHNANKUTTY, MADEENA COTTAGE,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, AREEKKARA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689505
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760
..2..
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760
..3..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" to allow this revision and set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 138/2018 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge - I, Mavelikkara which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/appellant/accused no.2 as per the Judgment dated 15.05.2018 in S.T No.18/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur, and acquit the revision- petitioner/appellant/ accused no.2, in the interest of justice."[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. No.18/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023 2025:KER:48760 ..4..
Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur. 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 for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) and the fine amount if recovered shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed 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. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760 ..5..
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 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760 ..6..
5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh nly) with a default sentence. 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 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 fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh only). In default of payment of Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023 2025:KER:48760 ..7..
fine, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. If the compensation amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.
4. 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 Respondent in accordance with law.
5. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ds 04.07.2025