Kerala High Court
Sandeep V.S vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
1
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. 371 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 IN Crl.A
NO.18 OF 2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2021 IN ST NO.6 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SANDEEP V.S
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN, VETTATHUKATTIL HOUSE, THRIKKADEERI
P.O, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679502
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SMT.POOJA K.S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682032
2 SULAIMAN
S/O. JAMALU, PARAMEL HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM POST,
SOUTH PANAMANNA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANOOP.K, S/O.
SANKARANARAYANAN.K, KADAMKURUSSI HOUSE,
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
2
AMBALAVATTOM P.O, SOUTH PANAMANNA, OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501
SRI HRITHWIK CS,SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.371 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
to set aside the judgment dated 15.01.2021 in
S.T.No. 06/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Ottapalam and the judgment
dated 21.12.2023 in Crl.A. No. 18/2021 on the file of
the Sessions Court, Palakkad and acquit the
revision petitioner 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 S.T. No.06/2019 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ottappalam. It
is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
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 sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only). In default of payment
of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months. 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 counsel for the petitioner raised three points.
The counsel submitted that there is no source of income to the
complainant to lend an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The counsel for
the petitioner takes me through the evidence adduced by PW1
and also the cross examination portion of the complaint. The
counsel submitted that from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that
he has no source to lend an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. I cannot
agree with the same. This Court considered the evidence of
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
PW1 especially the cross examined portion. He was working in
gulf. There was some property transaction also. In such
circumstances, this Court cannot say that there is no source to
lend an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Moreover, two courts
concurrently found against the petitioner. This is the revisional
court. The jurisdiction of the revisional court is very limited.
The next point raised by the petitioner is that cheque is
dishonored with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The counsel
submitted that the complainant has not proved that there was
no sufficient amount in the account of the petitioner. But this
aspect is not raised before the trial court. PW1 gave evidence
to the effect that the cheque was dishonored because of
insufficient fund. The same is not challenged by the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think that
contention cannot be accepted. The third point raised by the
petitioner is that the author of the writings in the cheque is not
proved by the complainant. I am of he considered opinion that
once the signature is admitted and handing over the cheque is
admitted, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
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 and sentence 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 and sentence imposed under
Section 138 of the NI Act.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed,
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Ten months time is
granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.
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 2nd respondent in accordance
2025:KER:47695
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2024
with law. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
