Kerala High Court
R Vijayakumar vs Varghese Chacko on 18 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.626 of 2025
2025:KER:62158
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 626 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2024 IN CRL.
APPEAL NO.17 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - III, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2021 IN ST NO.403 OF 2007 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
R VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 68 YEARS, KOICKAL SHANMUGA VILASOM,
PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686101
BY ADVS.
SMT..SHEEBA MARIAM. J.
SHRI.ATHUL TOM
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 VARGHESE CHACKO
KOTTARATH VADAKKEKARA, KADAMANITTA P O,
KOZHENCHERRY PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689649
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.626 of 2025
2025:KER:62158
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.626 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 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
ST No.403/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - II, Pathanamthitta. 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
2025:KER:62158
NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay
a compensation of Rs.5,52,000/- to the complainant
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment
of the compensation amount, the petitioner was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of two months. Aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional
District and Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta as Crl.
Appeal No.17/2021. The appellate court, after re-
appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction
and sentence imposed by the trial court and
dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Criminal Revision
Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner and the learned Public
2025:KER:62158
Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that there is no legally enforceable debt. The
counsel also submitted that a further opportunity
may be given to adduce additional documents. I am
of the considered opinion that such a prayer need not
be entertained. Originally the petitioner was
convicted and the same was confirmed by the
appellate court and thereafter this Court remanded
the case to the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner
adduced the evidence and the trial court again
convicted the petitioner and the appellate court
confirmed the same. This revision is against that
judgment. I see no reason to interfere with the
above order.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
with the concurrent finding of conviction and
2025:KER:62158
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.
6. What remains is the sentence imposed on
the petitioner. The sentence remains is to undergo
simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a
2025:KER:62158
compensation of Rs.5,52,000/- with a default
sentence of two months. 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.
7. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner
seeks some time for payment of the compensation
amount.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is
allowed-in-part in the following manner:
1. The conviction imposed on the revision petitioner
as per the impugned judgments is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner
as per the impugned judgments is set aside, and
the revision petitioner is directed to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay
compensation of Rs.5,52,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh
2025:KER:62158
Fifty Two Thousand only). In default of payment of
the compensation amount, the petitioner is
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months.
3. The revision petitioner is granted twelve months
time to pay the compensation amount and to
serve the sentence. Coercive steps against the
petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the
above period.
4. If any amount is already deposited before the trial
court, the same will be adjusted towards the
compensation amount, and the same should be
disbursed to the 1st respondent in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
