Kerala High Court
Sreejanatha Akshaya Chits Pvt. Ltd vs Nellikkal Nazar on 7 April, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025
..1..
2025:KER:29962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 103 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2024 IN Crl.A NO.255 OF 2023
OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2023 IN ST NO.723 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
C.P. RAJEESH KUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD.,
MUBEENA COMPLEX, BALUSSERY MUKKU,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673612
2 C.P.RAJEESH KUMAR
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD.,
MUBEENA COMPLEX, BALUSSERY MUKKU,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673612., PIN - 673612
BY ADVS.
B.KRISHNA MANI
DHANUJA M.S
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 NELLIKKAL NAZAR,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AMILANKUTTY,
RESIDING AT POOLONNUKANDY HOUSE,
UNNIKULAM VILLAGE, PONOOR DESOM,
THAMARASSERY TALUK,
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025
..2..
2025:KER:29962
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673574
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
NOEL JACOB
M.S.AMAL DHARSAN(K/728/2015)
SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025
..3..
2025:KER:29962
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act').
2. The 1st petitioner is a company engaged in the
business of chits. The 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director
of the 1st petitioner company. The 1st respondent filed a
complaint as S.T.No. 723 of 2015 against the petitioners
under Section 142 of the N.I.Act before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra (for short, 'the trial
court'). According to the 1st respondent, he joined a chitty
conducted by the petitioners for a sala value of Rs.1,00,000/-
and paid monthly instalment of Rs.5,000/- from 20.09.2013
till 20.04.2015. It is alleged that, he altogether paid
Rs.95,000/- to the petitioners towards the chitty instalments
..4..
2025:KER:29962
and towards the repayment of the said amount, Ext.P1
cheque was issued, which on presentation was dishonoured
for want of sufficient funds. The notice issued under Section
138(b) of the N.I. Act was received by the 1 st petitioner. The
notice to the 2nd petitioner was returned since he did not
claim it.
3. After trial, the trial court found the petitioners
guilty under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and they were
convicted for the said offence. The 2 nd petitioner was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the
court. Both petitioners were sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.95,000/-, in default, the 2nd petitioner was directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before
the II Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, 'the
appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No. 255 of 2023. The appellate
court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been
..5..
2025:KER:29962
filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as
the appellate court.
4. I have heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Noel Jacob, the learned
counsel for 1st respondent and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. To prove the case of the 1st respondent, he himself
gave evidence as PW1. He deposed in tune with the
averments in the complaint. Even though he was cross-
examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to
discredit his testimony. The 1st respondent has also produced
Ext.P6 passbook. It would show that he has paid Rs.86,000/-.
The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that the
cheque amount of Rs.95,000/- is inclusive of the interest
accrued. The petitioners did not challenge Ext.P6. The 1 st
respondent has succeeded in proving the transaction,
..6..
2025:KER:29962
execution and issuance of the cheque. No rebuttal evidence
has been adduced by the petitioners to rebut the
presumption available to the 1st respondent under Sections
118 and 139 of the N.I.Act.
6. The petitioners have taken a contention that there
is no proper notice to 2nd petitioner. As stated already, the
notice was served to the 1st petitioner. The notice sent to the
2nd petitioner was returned with the endorsement
"unclaimed". The Postmaster was examined as PW2. It has
come out in evidence that the notice has been issued in
correct address. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to
the presumption available under Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act and there is constructive service of notice.
For the reasons stated above, I find no reason to
interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
..7..
2025:KER:29962
However, the petitioners are granted three months' time to
appear before the trial court to receive the sentence till the
rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
