Kerala High Court
Sulaikha vs Shafeeq on 1 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
1
2025:KER:47749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 232 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2023 IN Crl.A
NO.76 OF 2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 15.11.2022 IN ST NO.145 OF 2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SULAIKHA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O SAKEER, KARUTHANATHODI HOUSE, RATTAKKOLLY,
KALPETTA POST, KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SHAFEEQ
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KASSIM, PICHAN HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPPAINAD
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD, PIN - 673577
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
2
2025:KER:47749
BY ADV.
SMT. S. SEETHA, SENIOR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
3
2025:KER:47749
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.232 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking
the following reliefs:
"to admit this Crl. R.P. and call for the records
from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta in
STC No.145/2019 and further be pleased to set aside
the conviction and sentence confirmed in Crl. Appeal
No.76/2022 on the files of Sessions Court, Kalpetta,
and be further be pleased to set aside the order of
conviction and sentence and acquit the
Petitioner/accused by allowing this petition."[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 S.T.C
No.145/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
2025:KER:47749
Court, Kalpetta. 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 petitioner is guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and
he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only)
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
complaint till its realisation. It was also made clear that the
cheque amount with interest shall not exceed twice the
cheque amount. The petitioner was also directed to pay the
fine amount if realised, to the complainant as compensation
under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the
compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed
2025:KER:47749
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
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
2025:KER:47749
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
period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,000/-
(Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only) with interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its
realisation with a default sentence. It was also made clear
that the cheque amount with interest shall not exceed twice
the cheque amount. 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.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed
in part in the following manner:
1. The conviction imposed on the petitioner as per the
2025:KER:47749
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 a fine of
Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand
only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the complaint till its realisation. It is also
made clear that the cheque amount with interest
shall not exceed twice the cheque amount. In
default of payment of compensation, the petitioner is
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two
months. If the compensation amount is deposited,
the same shall be paid to the 1 st respondent under
Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and
to serve the sentence.
2025:KER:47749
4. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period.
5. If any amount is already deposited before the trial
court, the same will be adjusted towards the
compensation/fine amount, and the same should be
disbursed to the 1st Respondent in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
