Kerala High Court
P.J.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
1
2025:KER:53378
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.24 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 24 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2019 IN Crl.A NO.59 OF
2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV, KOTTAYAM AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31.03.2018 IN CC NO.101 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS ,ERATTUPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.J.JOSEPH
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, PUNNATHANATH HOUSE,
BHARANANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
SRI.K.S.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SEBASTIAN THOMAS,
S/O. THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, KONNACKAL HOUSE,
CHENNADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 682556.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIJU MATHEW
SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
ADV.SMT SEETHA S -SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
2025:KER:53378
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.24 of 2024
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.24 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking
the following reliefs:
"To set aside the judgment dated 16.10.2019 in
Crl.Appeal No.59 of 2018 passed by the Additional
Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam and the judgment dated
31.03.2018 in C.C. No.101 of 2013 passed by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta in the
interest of justice."[SIC]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on
the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate
court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.
No.101/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Erattupetta. It is a prosecution initiated against the
petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').
The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the
2025:KER:53378
petitioner is guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and he
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five
months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant
under Section 138 of the NI Act. In default of payment of the
fine amount, the accused was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. If the fine amount is
realised an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- shall be released to the
complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the
Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal
is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after
re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal
Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking
the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless
2025:KER:53378
there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court
need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction
and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned
judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I
am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to
interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The
trial court and the appellate court considered the entire
evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing
to interfere with the conviction imposed under Section 138 of
the NI Act.
5. What remains is the sentence imposed on
the petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for
three months and to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) with a default
sentence. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads
to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that a substantive sentence of
imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside.
2025:KER:53378
6. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner
seeks some time for payment of the fine amount.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part in the following manner:
1. The conviction imposed on the petitioner as per the
impugned judgment is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the
impugned judgment is set aside, and the revision
petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). In default
of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If
the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid
to the respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and
to serve the sentence. All coercive steps against the
petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above
period.
2025:KER:53378
4. If any amount is already deposited before the trial
court, the same will be adjusted towards the fine
amount, and the same should be disbursed to the
Respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SMF
