Kerala High Court
Jaison M P vs Cicily Dinny Supriyan on 1 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
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. 1014 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.128 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII/,
ERNAKULAM / IV ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED IN CC NO.1419 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAISON M P
AGED 44 YEARS
CC NO.23/635, MULLAPPARAMBIL VEEDU,
RHB COLONY, NAZRETH DESAM, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE
KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
SRI.DILISH JOHN
SMT.RESHMA MOHAN
SHRI.AMBADI KANNAN
SRI.K.R.SAJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 CICILY DINNY SUPRIYAN
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.SUPRIYAN ARACKAL VEEDU, CC NO.23/758, JITHIN
VILLA NAZRETH DESAM, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE KOCHI,
PIN - 682001
2025:KER:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
2
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA)
SMT.SEETHA S, 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:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1014 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
i. To set aside the conviction and sentence passed
against the accused and acquit the accused, or in
the alternative, remand the case for fresh disposal
in accordance with law.
(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.1419/2008 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. 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
2025:KER:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three 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 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
2025:KER:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
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 one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh 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.
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 a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh
only). In default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner is
2025:KER:47696
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2023
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to
the 1st respondent under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
3. Five months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve
the sentence.
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 1 st respondent in
accordance with law.
5. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
