Kerala High Court
M/S.India Vision Satellite ... vs K.N.Prabhakaran Nair on 8 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 665 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRA 32/2018 OF
THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, ERNAKULAM AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2017 IN CC 895/2016 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 M/S.INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD.,
TOWER, CC NO.32/1787 BYE PASS RD., PADIVATOM,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
2 JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE,
RESIDENT DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.INDIA
VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD., TOWER, CC
NO.32/1787, BYE PASS RD., PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, RESIDING AT NO.1G, AC
VARSHA, MOTHER THERESA RD., EDAPPALLY POST,
KOCHI-682024, (PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION
LIMIT).
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR,
S/O.K.V.NARAYANA PILLAI, THEKKEDATH 30/902,
L.MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, KOCHI,
PIN- 682019 REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
R.C.VINOD, 53 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN NAIR, RESIDING
AT 38/1662, 245 LIG SECTOR B ROAD, GANDHI
NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, PIN- 682020.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.
2
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
BY ADVS.
R1 BY P.D.SARANGADHARAN
R1 BY SUNIL N.SHENOI
R1 BY KARTHIK SARANGAN
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 08.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.669/2019, 668/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 666 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRA 30/2018 OF
THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, ERNAKULAM AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2017 IN CC 1614/2016 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 M/S.INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD.
TOWER, CC NO.32/1787, BYE PASS ROAD,
PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
2 JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE
AGED 1 YEARS
RESIDENT DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. INDIA
VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD., TOWER, CC
NO.32/1787, BYE PASS ROAD, PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, RESIDING AT NO.1G, AC
VARSHA, MOTHER THERESA ROAD, EDAPPALLY POST,
KOCHI-682 024, (PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION
LIMIT).
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SMT.S.SUDHA (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR
S/O.K.V.NARAYANA PILLAI, THEKKEDATH 30/902,
L.MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VITTILA, KOCHI,
PIN-682 019, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER R.C.VINOD, 53 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT 38/1662, LIG SECTOR B ROAD, GANDHI
NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, PIN-682 020.
4
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY P.D.SARANGADHARAN
R1 BY SUNIL N.SHENOI
R1 BY KARTHIK SARANGAN
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 08.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.665/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRA 33/2018 OF
THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, ERNAKULAM AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2017 IN CC 894/2016 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
1 M/S.INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD,
TOWER, CC NO.32/1787 BYE PASS RD, PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.
2 JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE,
AGED 1 YEARS
RESIDENT DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. INDIA
VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD, TOWER, CC
NO.32/18.787 BYE BASS RD. PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, RESIDING AT NO.1G, AC
VARSHA, MOTHER THERESA RD, EDAPPALLY ROAD,
KOCHI-682024, (PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION
LIMIT)
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SMT.S.SUDHA (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR
S/O. K.V. NARAYANAN PILLAI ,THEKKEDATH 30/902
L. MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, KOCHI,
PIN-682019, REP.BY POWER OF ATTONRNEY HOLDER
R.C. VINOD, 53 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN NAIR, RESIDING
AT 38/1662, 245 LIG SECTOR B ROAD, GANDHI
NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, PIN-682020.
6
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY P.D.SARANGADHARAN
R1 BY SUNIL N.SHENOI
R1 BY KARTHIK SARANGAN
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 08.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.665/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 668 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRA 34/2018 OF
THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, ERNAKULAM AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2017 IN CC 896/2016 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 M/S.INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD
TOWER, CC NO.32/1787, BYE PASS RD, PADIVATOM,
EDAPPALLY , KOCHI-24.
2 JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE,
AGED 1 YEARS
RESIDENT DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. INDIA
VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD, TOWER, CC
NO.32/1787 BYE PASS RD.PADIVATOM, EDAPPALLY,
KOCHI-24, RESIDING AT NO.AG,AC VARSHA, MOTHER
THERESA RD., EDAPPALLY POST, KOCHI-682024,
(PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION LIMIT)
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
S.SUDHA (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR
S/O.K.N NARAYANA PILLAI, THEKKEDATH 30/902,
L.MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VITTILA,KOCHI, PIN-
682019, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R.C
VINOD, 53 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT
38/1662, 245 LIG SECTOR B ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, PIN-682020.
8
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY P.D.SARANGADHARAN
R1 BY SUNIL N.SHENOI
R1 BY KARTHIK SARANGAN
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 08.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.665/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 669 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRA 31/2018 OF
THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, ERNAKULAM AND THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2017 IN CC 891/2016 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 M/S.INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD,
TOWER,CC NO.32/1787,BYE PASS RD.,
PADIVATTOM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24.
2 JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE,
AGED 35 YEARS
RESIDENT DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR,M/S.INDIA
VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD,TOWER,CC
NO.32/1787,BYE PASS
RD.,PALARIVATTOM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24,RESIDING AT
NO.1G,AC VARSHA,MOTHER THERESA ROAD, EDAPPALLY
POST,KOCHI-682024,(PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION
LIMIT).
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SMT.S.SUDHA (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR
S/O.K.V.NARAYANA
PILLAI,THEKKEDATH,30/902,L.MOUNTAIN
ROAD,THYKOODAM,VYTTILLA,KOCHI,PIN-682019,REP.BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R.C.VINOD,53
YEARS,S/O.KANNAN NAIR,RESIDING AT 38/1662,245
LIG SECTOR B ROAD,GANDHI
NAGAR,KADAVANTHRA,COCHIN, PIN-682020.
10
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY P.D.SARANGADHARAN
R1 BY SUNIL N.SHENOI
R1 BY KARTHIK SARANGAN
R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 08.12.2023, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.665/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
11
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and 669 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2023
ORDER
The disputes involved in these Revision Petitions are
closely intertwined and hence these petitions are disposed of
by this common order.
2. The 1st petitioner is a private limited company. The
2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. They stand convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I.Act) in each of the five
cases, which were tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First
Class-VIII, Ernakulam. The 2nd petitioner was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and
directed to pay the amount of the cheque in question in the
respective cases as compensation under Section 357(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). The appeals
preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Ernakulam. The petitioners filed these
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Code challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of
the said judgments.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent.
4. The 1st respondent is the owner of the building
'Titus Tower' at Padivattom in Ernakulam. The 1 st petitioner-
company availed the said building on rent. There occurred
default in payment of rent. In the ensued negotiation, the
parties settled the disputes regarding payment of rent. In
terms of the said compromise, five cheques were issued by
the 2nd petitioner on behalf of the 1st petitioner towards
payment of the arrears of rent and interest. The details of the
cheque amounts are furnished below:
Case No. Amount of cheque
Crl.R.P.No.665 of 2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
Crl.R.P.No.666 of 2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
Crl.R.P.No.667 of 2019 Rs.19,43,479/-
Crl.R.P.No.668 of 2019 Rs.61,00,000/-
Crl.R.P.No.669 of 2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
The above cheques were presented for encashment. But, all
the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in
the account of the 1st petitioner. Notices demanding payment
of the amounts due under the cheques were issued, but the
petitioners did not heed to the demand. Hence, the 1 st
respondent filed separate complaints with respect to the five
cheques.
5. Before the trial court, in each of the cases, various
documents were produced and oral evidences of the 2 nd
respondent was recorded, which are tabulated below:-
Crl.R.P.No. Crl.Appeal No. C.C.No. Documents Oral evidence Defence
produced evidence
665/2019 32/2018 895/2016 P1 to P9 PW1 Nil
666/2019 30/2018 1614/2016 P1 to P9 PW1 D1 to D4
667/2019 33/2018 894/2016 P1 to P9 PW1 Nil
668/2019 34/2018 896/2016 P1 to P9 PW1 Nil
669/2019 31/2018 891/2016 P1 to P9 PW1 Nil
6. After appreciation of the evidence, the court below
found the petitioners guilty and convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The 2 nd petitioner was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
and to pay compensation in each cases as noted below under
Section 357(3) of the Code:
Crl.R.P.No. C.C.No. Compensation amount
665/2019 895/2016 Rs.19,66,419/-
666/2019 1614/2016 Rs.19,66,419/-
667/2019 894/2016 Rs.19,43,879/-
668/2019 896/2016 Rs.61,00,000/-
669/2019 891/2016 Rs.19,66,419/-
7. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgments of
the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioners. The petitioners assail the judgments of the
Appellate Court as also the trial court on various grounds,
such as; no sufficient pleadings were there in the complaints,
the power of attorney in favour of PW1 was not duly proved,
the evidence tendered by the prosecution is in contradiction to
the terms in the agreement between the parties and that
there was no proper demand notice. The legality of the
sentence is also called in question by the petitioners.
8. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the questions raised by the
petitioners are all regarding the questions of facts and the
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
courts below did not, in fact, properly appreciate the
evidence. The 1st respondent adduced evidence to prove his
case through PW1. All necessary documents were also
produced. The contentions set forth by the petitioners as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel are relating to the
disputed questions of fact. In a revision, the scope of
interference to the findings of the courts below on the
disputed questions of fact is very limited.
9. The power of revision under Section 401 of the Code
is not wide and exhaustive. The High Court in the exercise of the
powers of revision cannot re-appreciate evidence to come to a
different conclusion, but its consideration of the evidence is
confined to find out the legality, regularity and propriety of the
order impugned before it. When the findings rendered by the
courts below are well supported by evidence on record and
cannot be said to be perverse in any way, the High Court is not
expected to interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts
below while exercising revisional jurisdiction. [See: State of
Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
2 SCC 452; Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123; Kishan Rao v.
Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165].
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not
point out any perversity or lack of consideration of evidence
concerning the findings regarding the proof of executions of
the cheques and the considerations underlining the said
cheques. As regards the statutory compliance, there is no
much contest. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
challenge of the petitioners to their conviction is untenable.
11. Concerning the sentence, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the liability fixed is
ultimately of the 1st petitioner company. The 2nd respondent as
Managing Director of the company alone is answerable to the
charge. In that view of the matter, the sentence of
imprisonment of the 2nd petitioner may be harsh. The learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, would
submit that it was the 2nd petitioner, who has been managing
whole affairs of the company and it is he who really had
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
committed the offence and therefore the sentence is
commensurate to the offence he has committed.
12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that imprisonment for a period of
one year is disproportionate to the offence. Imprisonment till
the rising of the court and payment to pay compensation as
ordered by the courts below will meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, these Revision Petitions are allowed in part.
Conviction of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in each of the cases is
confirmed. The sentence of the 2nd petitioner is modified.
13. The Revision Petitions are allowed in part. The
conviction of the petitioners are confirmed. The sentence of
the 2nd petitioner is modified as imprisonment till the rising of
the court. He is further ordered to pay compensation in each
cases as noted below under Section 357(3) of the Code:
Crl.R.P.No. Compensation amount
665/2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
666/2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
667/2019 Rs.19,43,879/-
668/2019 Rs.61,00,000/-
669/2019 Rs.19,66,419/-
Crl.R.P.Nos.665, 666, 667, 668 and
669 of 2019
In default of payment of compensation within a period of
three months, the 2nd petitioner shall undergo imprisonment
for a period of three months in each case.
14. In terms of the direction of the Appellate Court, the
petitioners have deposited Rs.1,00,000/- each in all the five
cases. The learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to pay
the said amount to the 1st respondent. Once the 1st
respondent receives that amount, the same shall be given
credit towards the amount of compensation in the respective
cases.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
