Kerala High Court
Binumon Vijayan vs Arun George on 22 August, 2025
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1579 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2016 IN Crl.A NO.72
OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2015 IN ST NO.88 OF
2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BINUMON VIJAYAN
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, THANDEL HOUSE,
VANDAMATTOM P.O., NEDUMATTOM, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.B.SANDEEP
SRI.P.N.ARUN KUMAR
SHRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR
SMT.R.PRIYA
SHRI.B.SURJITH
SMT.K.P.SREEJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 ARUN GEORGE
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, MANTHANATHU
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
2
HOUSE, KOOVAKANDOM P.O.,THODUPUZHA TALUK, NOW
RESIDING AT MANTHANATHU HOUSE, NEDIYASALA P.O.,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685608.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1580/2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1580 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2016 IN Crl.A NO.72
OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2015 IN ST NO.15 OF
2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BINUMON VIJAYAN
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, THANDEL HOUSE,
VANDAMATTOM P.O, NEDUMATTOM, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.B.SANDEEP
SRI.P.N.ARUN KUMAR
SHRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR
SMT.R.PRIYA
SHRI.B.SURJITH
SMT.K.P.SREEJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
4
1 ARUN GEORGE
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, MANTHANATHU
HOUSE, KOOVAKANDOM P.O, THODUPUZHA TALUK, NOW
RESIDING AT MANTHANATHU HOUSE, NEDIYASALA P.O,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685 608.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNKULAM-682 031.
BY ADV SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARED
ON 22.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1579/2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
5
COMMON ORDER
Under challenge in these revision petitions is
the conviction and sentence rendered against the
revision petitioner, under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in
S.T.No.88 of 2013 and S.T.No.15 of 2014 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
II, Thodupuzha. He stood trial before that court
for committing an offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I.Act.
3. The common case of the complainant in both
these cases is as follows:
While dissolving the partnership firm by name
"Neo Tech Computers", on 16.05.2012, it was
resolved that the accused should pay Rs.1,45,000/-
to the complainant within 15.07.2012. On
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
11.08.2012, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated
12.08.2012 for Rs.40,000/-, as part payment. When
the cheque was presented for collection, it got
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The
statutory notice issued on 10.10.2012 to the
accused demanding the amount covered by Ext.P1
cheque, returned unclaimed. Later, on 16.11.2012,
the complainant issued Ext.P7 cheque dated
28.02.2013 for Rs.1,05,000/-, balance amount. The
said cheque also got dishonoured for the reason
that funds are insufficient. The statutory notice
issued demanding payment of the amount covered by
Ext.P7 cheque returned unclaimed. Hence, the
complainant approached the trial court by filing
S.T.No.88 of 2013 in relation to Ext.P1 cheque and
S.T.No.15 of 2014 in relation to Ext.P7 cheque.
4. In the trial court, both S.T.Nos.88 of 2013
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
and 15 of 2014 were tried jointly, by taking
S.T.No.88 of 2013 as the leading case. From the
side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and
Exts.P1 to P13 documents were marked. When examined
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all
the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in evidence and contended that he is innocent.
He stated that Ext.P1 cheque was one which he had
kept signed in the partnership firm run by the
complainant and himself and the same has been
misused by the complainant. He further stated that
Ext.P7 cheque is one obtained under duress on the
basis of a complaint filed before the police. He
also stated that the accused is not personally
liable for the amounts covered by the cheques and
the same can be recovered only from his firm. From
the side of the accused, no oral evidence was
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
adduced and only Exts.D1 to D5 documents were
marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the
evidence on record, found the accused guilty and
convicted him under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, in
both the cases. In S.T.No.88 of 2013, the accused
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months and to pay a fine of
Rs.40,000/- under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, with
a default clause. In S.T.No.15 of 2014, the accused
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,05,000/- under Section 138 of the N.I.Act,
with a default clause. The fine amount was ordered
to be paid to the complainant, as compensation,
under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
5. Against the conviction and sentence passed
in S.T.No.88 of 2013, the accused filed Crl.Appeal
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
No.72 of 2015 and against the conviction and
sentence passed in S.T.No.15 of 2014, the accused
filed Crl.Appeal No.73 of 2015 before the
Additional Sessions Court-III, Thodupuzha. The said
court, by common judgment dated 30.09.2016,
confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced
the sentence to one of simple imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay a fine covering the
cheque amount in both the cases, with a default
clause.
6. Heard Sri.M.B.Sandeep, learned counsel for
the revision petitioner. There is no representation
for the 1st respondent. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner contended that both the trial court as
well as the appellate court had failed to
appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against
the accused. He argued that Ext.P1 cheque, which
was kept signed by the accused in the partnership
firm for business purpose, has been misused by the
complainant and Ext.P7 cheque has been obtained by
him after threatening the accused. He also
submitted that going by Ext.P13 dissolution deed,
the accused has no personal liability to pay the
amount and the amount can be realised only from the
profits of the firm run by him. He further
submitted that the version of the complainant that
the accused has issued Ext.P7 cheque, after filing
of S.T.No.88 of 2013 is not at all believable.
Hence, he prayed that these revision petitions may
be allowed.
8. The materials on record go to show that in
order to prove the case of the complainant, he
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
himself has got examined as PW1 and has marked as
Exts.P1 to P13 documents. PW1 has filed a proof
affidavit in tune with the averments in the
complaint. His evidence shows that he along with
the accused were partners of the firm and that, the
same was dissolved as per Ext.P13 dissolution deed
on 16.05.2012. At that time, an amount of
Rs.1,45,000/- was due from the accused towards him
and that the accused has promised to pay the same
within a time frame. Later on 11.08.2012, the
accused came to his house and signed and issued
Ext.P1 cheque dated 12.08.2012 for Rs.40,000/- as
part payment. But when the cheque was presented for
collection, it got dishonoured and the statutory
notice issued demanding the amount, returned
unclaimed. Thereafter, he demanded the accused to
repay the entire amount. But the accused sought
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
time till February, 2013. Subsequently, on
16.11.2012, the accused came to his house and
issued Ext.P7 cheque dated 28.02.2013 for
Rs.1,05,000/-, the balance amount. The cheque was
filled up and signed by the accused himself, before
him. But when the said cheque was presented for
collection, it had the same fate as that of Ext.P1.
9. In the instant case, the specific case of
the accused is that Ext.P1 was a signed blank
cheque which he had kept in the partnership firm
for business purposes and that the same has been
misused by the complainant. But, as rightly found
by the trial court and the appellate court, Exts.D3
and D4 would go to show that the account in which
Ext.P1 cheque is drawn, has been opened only on
23.05.2012, 7 days after the dissolution of the
partnership as per Ext.P13 deed. If so, the version
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
of the accused that Ext.P1 cheque was kept in the
partnership firm for business purposes, is nothing
but false. It also shows that the accused is
groping in dark, to somehow make out a probable
version.
10. As regards Ext.P7 cheque, the specific case
of the accused is that it is on the basis of a
complaint filed by the complainant to the police,
he was threatened to issue the same. But it is to
be seen that there is no convincing evidence to
substantiate the said contention. Ext.D1 document
relied upon by the accused to substantiate this
contention, is not at all helpful to him and it
does not in any manner show that Ext.P7 cheque, had
been issued under duress. On the other hand, Ext.D1
shows that it is a complaint filed after the
dishonour of Ext.P1 cheque, with a prayer for
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
realising the amount from the security amount in
deposit with the owner of the building, wherein
partnership business was conducted. If so, I find
no merit in this contention also.
11. The next contention of the accused is that
the version of the complainant that Ext.P7 cheque
was issued after filing of S.T.No.88 of 2013 is not
believable. But, I am of the view that there is no
merit in it. PW1 during cross-examination has
clearly stated that after the dishonour of Ext.P1
cheque and filing of the complaint, some common
friends have intervened in the matter, resulting in
issuing Ext.P7 cheque. He also stated that it is
only because of the fact that a case is already
pending with regard to Ext.P1 cheque, Ext.P7 cheque
did not contain the entire amount. As rightly found
by the trial court and the appellate court, the
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
version of PW1 regarding this aspect is convincing
and I do not find any ground to take a different
view.
12. Coming to the contention of the accused
that the amount due to the complainant as per
Ext.P13 deed can only be realised from the
firm/business conducted by the accused, again I am
of the view that there is no merit in it. Going
by Ext.P13, it is to be seen that the partnership
firm conducted by the complainant and the accused
has been dissolved and it says that the business
shall be run by the accused as a proprietorship
concern or in partnership with others. The 313
statement of the accused shows that the accused
himself is running the firm after Ext.P13. If so,
no distinction can be made between the
proprietorship firm and its sole proprietor who is
2025:KER:63847
Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 & 1580 of 2017
the accused, and the accused cannot escape from the
liability.
13. Thus, on appreciating the materials on
record, I find that both the trial court and the
appellate court have not committed any error or
illegality in appreciating the evidence on record
and in arriving at a conclusion of guilt against
the accused. As regards the sentence, it is to be
seen that the appellate court has imposed only a
just and proper sentence on the accused. Hence, I
am of the view that there is no merit in these
revision petitions and the same are only to be
dismissed.
In the result, Crl.R.P.Nos.1579 and 1580 of
2017 are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
scl
