Kerala High Court
Sudheer Babu vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:49793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2024 IN Crl.A NO.124 OF
2023 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.03.2022 IN ST NO.158 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -II,PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SUDHEER BABU
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.HYDRU HAJI, AMADAN HOUSE, KUTTIYIL, VANIYAMBALAM
POST, WANDOOR, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679339
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.P.BIJU
SMT.SAFNA P.S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 ABDURAHIMAN
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, VADAKKAN HOUSE, PARAKKULAM,
VANIYAMBALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679339
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49793
CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.957 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the records, set aside the judgments in ST No.158/2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna dated 31.03.2022 and confirming the conviction and sentence in Crl.Appeal No.124/2023 of Sessions Court, Manjeri dated 21.08.2024 passed by the trial court and appellate court and acquit the petitioner/accused to secure the ends 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.158/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. 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 2025:KER:49793 CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2024 3 imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.4,52,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only). In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 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.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and 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, 2025:KER:49793 CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2024 4 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 six months and to pay fine of Rs.4,52,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only) 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.4,52,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 2nd 2025:KER:49793 CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2024 5 respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Twelve months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.
4. All 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 fine amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE SSG