C.Sidhique vs V.K.Ummer
2025 Latest Caselaw 4467 Ker

Kerala High Court

C.Sidhique vs V.K.Ummer on 25 February, 2025

                                                                 2025:KER:15489
Crl.R.P.No.703/2018
                                            -:1:-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

         TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                               CRL.REV.PET NO. 703 OF 2018

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 IN Crl.A NO.314 OF 2014
        OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI

            AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2014 IN ST NO.541 OF 2011 OF
                JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

                      C.SIDHIQUE​
                      S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY,
                      CHENAKKAL HOUSE, KADAVANAD, PONNANI,
                      MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

                      BY ADVS.SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN​
                              SMT.D.N.NISHANI​
                              SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR​
                              SRI.V.SREEJITH K13982000​
                              SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

        1             V.K.UMMER​
                      S/O.MAYUMU, VEETTILAKATHU HOUSE,
                      KADAVANAD, PONNANI SOUTH,
                      MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679586.

        2             THE STATE OF KERALA​
                      REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

                      BY ADV SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH FOR R1
                             SMT. MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.02.2025, THE COURT ON 25.02.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:15489
Crl.R.P.No.703/2018
                                       -:2:-


                                   ORDER

​ The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No. 541/2011 on the files of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani. The aforesaid case arose

out of a complaint preferred by the first respondent herein alleging the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(in

short, 'NI Act'). Upon conclusion of the trial before the learned Magistrate,

with the examination of the first respondent as PW1 and marking of Exts

P1 to P3 on the part of the complainant, and also two witnesses on the

part of the petitioner as DW1 and DW2, the learned Magistrate found the

petitioner guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offence and sentenced

him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation

of Rs.1,30,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973(in short, 'Cr.PC'). The petitioner challenged the above verdict

before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, by filing Crl.A.No.314/2014. The

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri, as per the judgment dated

28.03.2018, concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the

complainant has successfully established the commission of offence under

Section 138 NI Act by the petitioner. However, the sentence imposed was

modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a direction to 2025:KER:15489

pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- to the first respondent herein under

Section 357(3) Cr.PC. Challenging the above judgment of the Appellate

Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor

representing the State of Kerala.

​ 3.​ The case of the first respondent was that towards the

discharge of a debt of Rs.1,00,000/- which the petitioner owed him, a

cheque dated 23.02.2005 was issued by the petitioner, which, when

presented for collection, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in

the account of the petitioner on 05.03.2005, and that the petitioner did

not care to make payment of the cheque amount in spite of demand by

way of registered lawyer's notice. It is stated that the petitioner refused

to accept the lawyer's notice issued by the first respondent.

​ 4.​ In the evidence adduced before the Trial Court, the first

respondent stated about the above liability incurred by the petitioner in

the above regard and the execution and issuance of Ext P1 cheque

towards the discharge of the aforesaid liability. Ext P2 and P3 series were

brought on record to show the dishonour of the cheque and the failure of 2025:KER:15489

the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount despite the

demand made by the first respondent by way of statutory notice

contemplated under proviso (b) of Section 138 of the NI Act.

​ 5.​ Though the petitioner has strongly disputed the financial

transaction with the first respondent, nothing would be brought forth to

substantiate the said challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would argue that the absence of detailed description of the financial

transactions between the petitioner and the first respondent in the legal

notice as well as in the complaint, itself is sufficient to come to a

conclusion that the case put forward by the complainant is wrong. I find

no merit in the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

There is no invariable principle of law that in a complaint preferred under

section 138 of the NI Act the complainant has to describe elaborately

about the nature of the transaction with the accused which gave rise to

the financial liability. As far as the present case is concerned, the fact

that the petitioner owed Rs.1,00,000/- from the first respondent is clearly

narrated in the legal notice as well as the complaint. It is not possible to

attribute any credence upon the evidence relied on by the petitioner on

the basis of the statements of the two witnesses examined as DW1 & 2025:KER:15489

DW2 who stated that the complainant had not mobilised the money by

pledging or selling gold as claimed, and that there was no transaction

between the complainant and the accused. So also, the contention of the

petitioner that a signed blank cheque issued by him was manipulated and

misused for the institution of this complaint, cannot be accepted on face

value in the light of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble

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

There is absolutely nothing which the petitioner could bring forth to rebut

the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act which the complainant

successfully established through his evidence before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the

evidence in the correct perspective. In the absence of any material to

show that there was perverse appreciation of evidence or utter disregard

to the settled principles of law on the part of the courts below, it is not

possible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and

the Appellate Court in this proceedings under revision.

​ 6.​ 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.

2025:KER:15489

7.​ 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.

​ 8.​ 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 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.

​ 9.​ 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 2025:KER:15489

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 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."

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

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid

decisions as reasons justifying the interference in revision, with the

findings of the courts below, are attracted in the facts and circumstances 2025:KER:15489

of this case. Therefore, the present revision petition is found to be

devoid of merit.

​ In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

                       ​     ​       ​         ​             ​       (Sd/-)
                                                                 G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST



​                                ​       ​           ​            //True Copy//

​                                ​       ​               ​        P.A.To Judge