Kerala High Court
Siddique M vs Kalpetta Co-Operative Employees ... on 28 February, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2025:KER:17197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 63 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN CRL.A NO.4 OF 2023
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KALPETTA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.12.2022 IN STC NO.568
OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SIDDIQUE M
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. AYISHA, MACHINGAL HOUSE, MADAKKIMALA POST,
PARALIKKUNNU MUTTIL VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD DIST, PIN - 673122
BY ADVS.
V.C.ARCHANA
CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 KALPETTA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
JOBIN P.J., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH C.J.,
PACHIKKAL HOUSE, CHELLANKODE P.O.
MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
2
WAYANAD DIST, PIN - 673122
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SMT. SREEJA V., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
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 is a Co-operative Society
engaged in conducting mutual fund scheme and other loan
schemes. The 1st respondent preferred a private complaint
against the petitioner under Section 142 of the N. I. Act
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta (for short
'the trial court') as S. T. C. No.568/2019. The allegation in
the complaint is that the petitioner subscribed a mutual
benefit fund scheme run by the 1st respondent having a sala
of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) and availed a loan of
₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), but failed to repay the
same and towards the loan amount due, Ext.P1 cheque was
issued which on presentation was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under Section
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
138(b) of the N.I. Act was issued, there was no compliance.
Hence, the prosecution was lodged.
3. Before the trial court, on the side of the
complainant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to
P12 were marked. On the side of the defence, Ext.D1 was
marked. After the trial, the trial court found the petitioner
guilty under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and he was
convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
a fine of ₹2,89,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty nine
thousand and five hundred only) with interest at the rate of
9% per annum, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
a further period of three months. The petitioner challenged
the conviction and sentence of the trial court in appeal
before the Additional Sessions Court - I, Kalpetta, Wayanad
(for short 'the appellate court') as Criminal Appeal
No.4/2023. The appellate court confirmed the conviction,
but reduced the substantive sentence till rising of the court
retaining the fine amount and default sentence. This revision
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
petition has been preferred challenging the judgments of the
trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is not in dispute that the 1 st respondent is a Co-
operative Society engaged in the business of mutual fund
scheme and loans. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner
is a member of the Co-operative Society and availed a loan
from the society. The definite case of the 1st respondent is
that the petitioner availed a loan of ₹5,00,000/- and towards
the discharge of the loan amount due, the cheque in
question was issued. On the other hand, the defence set up
by the petitioner is that a blank cheque was issued as a
security while availing the loan amount, though he repaid
70% of the loan amount, the signed blank cheque was not
returned and misusing the same, a false complaint was filed.
In order to prove the case of the 1 st respondent, its
Secretaries were examined as PWs 1 and 2. They gave
evidence in tune with the averments in the complaint. Even
though they were cross examined in length, nothing tangible
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
could be extracted from their evidence to discredit their
testimony. Apart from the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2,
the 1st respondent also adduced substantial documentary
evidence. Exts.P5 and P6, the extract of the minutes of the
proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting of the 1 st
respondent Society would show that PWs 1 and 2 were
authorised to conduct the case on behalf of the 1 st
respondent Society. Ext.P7 is the application for loan
submitted by the petitioner to avail loan of ₹5,00,000/-.
Ext.P8 would show that the petitioner received the entire
loan of ₹5,00,000/- after deducting the commission and
dividend. Ext.P10 is the account statement of the
petitioner's loan account. It would show that the amount
covered by the cheque was due from the petitioner to the 1 st
respondent. Thus, the 1st respondent has succeeded in
proving the transaction, execution and issuance of the
cheque. The petitioner failed to adduce any rebuttal
evidence to rebut the presumption available to the 1 st
respondent under Sections 118 and 139 of the N. I. Act.
2025:KER:17197
CRL.REV.PET NO.63 OF 2025
Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgments. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, 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
fine amount.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
BR
