Kerala High Court
Abhilash vs Latha Biji Narayanan @ Latha Kumari on 25 February, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2025:KER:16346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 370 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.44 OF 2021 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2021 IN ST NO.8 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -IV, PUNALUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ABHILASH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O SACHIDANDAN, ABHI BHAVAN,
PUNNALA P.O, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 689696
BY ADV.
VISHAK.K.JOHNSON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 LATHA BIJI NARAYANAN @ LATHA KUMARI
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O CHELAMMA, THALAPPANAMKULAM
THEKKEKKARA, PUTHEN VEEDU HOUSE,
KARAVOOR P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
2
PUSHPAVALLY K , AGED 61 YEARS,
D/O GOWRI VIDYA SADANAM KARAVOOR P.O.,
PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689696
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SEETHA S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SREEJITH S
AKHIL K.MADHAV
ANESH PAUL(K/480-Q/2007)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
3
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed
challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and
sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').
2. The 1st respondent filed a private complaint
against the petitioner under Section 142 of the N. I. Act
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - IV, Punalur
(for short 'the trial court') as S. T. No.8/2019. The case of
the 1st respondent is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of
₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from her on 09.11.2015
and towards the discharge of the said debt, Ext.P1 cheque
was issued which on presentation was dishonoured for want
of sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under
Section 138(b) of the N. I. Act was issued and received by
the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the
prosecution was lodged.
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
3. Before the trial court, on the side of the
complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were
marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and
Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. After the trial, the trial court
found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N. I. Act
and convicted him for the said offence. He was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months
and to pay a compensation of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
lakhs only) to the 1st respondent, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner
challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court
before the Principal Sessions Court, Kollam (for short 'the
appellate court') as Criminal Appeal No.44/2021. The
appellate court dismissed the appeal. This Criminal Revision
Petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial
court as well as the appellate court.
4. I have heard both sides.
5. In order to prove the case of the 1 st respondent,
the power of attorney holder was examined as PW1. PW1
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
stated that she had direct knowledge of the transaction.
She gave evidence in tune with the avernments in the
complaint. Even though PW1 was cross examined in length,
nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit her
testimony. The petitioner has admitted the signature in the
cheque. He denied the transaction. According to him, one
Deepu had borrowed ₹40,000/- from one Vasantha and he
intervened as a mediator and as a security for the said
transaction, he gave a signed blank cheque to Vasantha.
However, no credible evidence has been adduced to
substantiate the said version. Vasantha was not examined.
The 1st respondent has succeeded in proving the transaction,
execution and issuance of the cheque. No rebuttal evidence
has been adduced by the petitioner to rebut the
presumption available to the 1st respondent under Sections
118 and 139 of the N. I. Act. Hence, I find no reason to
interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate
court is excessive. Hence, the substantive sentence is
reduced till the rising of the court, retaining the
compensation amount. The petitioner is granted three
months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the
compensation amount.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
BR
2025:KER:16346
CRL.REV.PET NO.370 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 370/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE COURT,
KOLLAM DATED 04/06/2022 IN CRL.APPEAL
Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.
8/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-IV, PUNALUR
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
