K.Govindankutty vs Krishnankutty Nair
2025 Latest Caselaw 4045 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.Govindankutty vs Krishnankutty Nair on 14 February, 2025

                                                                  2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
                                            -:1:-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

    FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946

                             CRL.REV.PET NO. 232 OF 2019

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2019 IN Crl.A NO.206
   OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV,
  THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2017 IN CC
       NO.8 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                          II,CHAVAKKAD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

                  K.GOVINDANKUTTY,​
                  AGED 61 YEARS,​
                  KADAVANNOOR HOUSE,
                  NAMBAZHIKKAD DESOM,
                  KANDANSSERY VILLAGE,
                  THALAPPILLY TALUK.

                 BY ADVS.SHRI.PRABHU K.N.​
                         SHRI.MANUMON A.


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

       1          KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,​
                  AGED 71 YEARS,​
                  PENSIONER, KIZHAKKOOT HOUSE,
                  ALOOR DESOM, KANDANSSERY VILLAGE,
                  THALAPPILLY TALUK. PIN - 680 102.

       2          STATE OF KERALA,​
                  REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                  HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

       3          KOMALAVALLY, ​
                  AGED 66 YEARS,​
                  W/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE,
                  ALOOR, ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK , THRISSUR
                  DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
                  DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)
                                                             2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
                                        -:2:-



       4          RAJESH, ​
                  AGED 41 YEARS,​
                  S/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
                  KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE, ALOOR,
                  ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK ,
                  THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602(IS IMPLEADED AS
                  PER ORDER DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)

       5          HARISH, ​
                  AGED 37 YEARS,​
                  S/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE,
                  ALOOR, ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK ,
                  THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602 (IS IMPLEADED AS
                  PER ORDER DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)


                   BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1,R3 & R5​
                           SMT.C.S.RAJANI
                           SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON 14.02.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                   2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
                                           -:3:-


                                    ORDER

​ Under challenge in this revision is the judgment rendered by the

Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur in Crl.A.No.206/2017 filed against

the conviction and sentence of the petitioner herein in C.C.No.8/2017

on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chavakkad.

The petitioner was prosecuted before the Trial Court by the first

respondent herein for the commission of offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short, 'NI Act').

​ 2.​ The allegation against the petitioner was that a cheque

dated 25.11.2014 issued by him to the first respondent for an amount

of Rs.4,90,000/- towards repayment of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

borrowed from the first respondent on 07.01.2013, with interest that

accrued thereafter, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the

account of the petitioner, and that the petitioner did not care to make

payment of the said amount despite receipt of statutory notice issued

under Proviso (b) of the NI Act.

3.​ Before the Trial Court, the first respondent was examined as

PW1 and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. From the part

of the petitioner, two documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D2. After 2025:KER:11814

an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found

the petitioner guilty of the commission of offence under Section 138 of

the NI Act. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of

Rs.4,90,000/- to the first respondent with a default clause of simple

imprisonment for six months. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thrissur embarked upon a

re-appreciation of the entire evidence and found that there was no

need to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner by the Trial Court.

However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months awarded

by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court

while retaining the direction for payment of compensation as such.

Aggrieved by the above verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is

here before this Court with this revision.

4.​ During the pendency of this revision, the first respondent

passed away. The additional respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as the

legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.​

5.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

counsel for additional respondents 3 to 5 and the learned Public

Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

2025:KER:11814

6.​ The learned counsel for the petitioner had dealt with in

detail about the background mentioned in the complaint pertaining to

the claim of the first respondent advancing a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to

the petitioner, and argued that it would bring out inconsistencies

rendering the case of the first respondent unbelievable. The

complainant has stated in his complaint that while he was working as

Branch Manager of Kandanassery Branch of Mattom Service

Co-operative Bank, the wife of the first respondent (additional third

respondent) was the Secretary of that Bank, and that both of them

were held liable for an incident wherein two persons by name Jemshir

and Anoop managed to obtain loan from the said bank by pledging

spurious gold ornaments, and that the petitioner had to remit some

amount to the said bank to avoid disciplinary action in connection with

the said incident. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was said to have been

borrowed by the petitioner from the first respondent for the above

purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

the averment in the complaint that even after one year, the petitioner

failed to repay the said amount, and that after the issuance of a

lawyer's notice on 17.11.2014, the petitioner issued the impugned

cheque, are totally unbelievable. Another argument advanced by the 2025:KER:11814

learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below failed to

appreciate the defence case in the correct perspective. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defence version about the

manipulation and misuse of the signed blank cheque issued by the

petitioner to one C.N.Rangeesh, the then Manager of the said bank, in

connection with the payment in a chitty transaction, is more probable

than the version of the complainant about the issuance of the

impugned cheque to him.

7.​ As regards the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the petitioner in the above regard, it has to be stated that all those

aspects were rightly discussed by the courts below in the impugned

judgments and found against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate

has discussed in detail in paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment

about the case put forward by the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion

that in the absence of any satisfactory material on record to

substantiate the defence version in the above regard, it is not possible

to discredit the prosecution case, especially in view of the presumption

available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act. The

Appellate Court has also dealt with in detail in paragraph Nos.10 & 11

of the impugned judgment about the version of the petitioner in the 2025:KER:11814

statements tendered by him under Section 313 Cr.PC, and observed

that the defence version sans credibility. There is absolutely no reason

to unsettle the concurrent factual findings of the courts below in the

above regard, arrived after an elaborate ratiocination of the evidence

on record. As regards the contention of the petitioner about the

issuance of a signed blank cheque by him, and the subsequent misuse

and manipulation of the same by the first respondent, his wife and the

then Bank Manager C.N.Rangeesh, both the courts below have rightly

observed that the failure of the petitioner to initiate legal action against

the aforesaid persons for resorting to malicious prosecution against

him, itself would discredit the case put forward by him in the above

regard. There is absolutely no reason to discard the above findings of

the courts below. The law is now trite with the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197]

that once the person who had drawn a cheque admits his signature in

that cheque, in the absence of cogent evidence pointing to vitiating

circumstances, he cannot be heard to say that the other entries in that

instrument were incorporated by somebody else by way of

manipulations. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner

failed to establish, even by way of preponderance of probability, that 2025:KER:11814

the impugned cheque was one he had issued for another purpose, and

that it had been manipulated and misused by the first respondent and

his wife. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner in this

revision is devoid of merit.

8.​ The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in

revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

9.​ In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR

1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

​ 10.​ In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao

Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as follows:

Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where 2025:KER:11814

the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

11.​ Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed

in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows:

Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:

"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material 2025:KER:11814

or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

12.​ As far as the present case is concerned, none of the

parameters highlighted in the case laws referred above warranting

interference of this Court in revision, have been brought out by the

petitioner. Therefore, it has to be held that the judgment rendered by

the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, in Crl.A.No.206/2017 is not

liable to be interfered with in this revision.

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed, confirming the

conviction and sentence awarded by the Appellate Court in the

aforesaid judgment.

                       ​      ​       ​       ​                    (sd/-)
                                                             G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST