Kerala High Court
Fathima Sajla vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.726 of 2024
1
2025:KER:48427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 726 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.123 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2019 IN ST NO.13 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PARAPPANANGADI
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
FATHIMA SAJLA
D/O PADAVAKKAL ABDUL RAZAK, PADAVAKKAL HOUSE,
KODATHIPADI NEAR RELIANCE PETROL PUMP PO. MANNARKKAD,
PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.321 EAST HILL
APARTMENT WEST HILL. PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
SMT.RAKHY BABY
SMT.TREESA SHAJI
SMT.SNEHA JOY
SHRI.NISHAN AHAMMED MULLAVEETTIL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.726 of 2024
2
2025:KER:48427
2 KRISHNAN. M,
S/O CHAKKU AGED 65 YEARS, MOOKKAM PARAMBATH HOUSE
KADALUNDI NAGARAM. PO MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673314
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH
SMT.K.C.KHAMARUNNISA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
SR PP, SMT. SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.726 of 2024
3
2025:KER:48427
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.726 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
"to allow the revision and set the judgment dated
29.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2019 of the Additional
Session Court, Tirur. Division arising out of the judgment dated
28.05.2019 in ST No. 13/2017 on the files of the Judicial First-
Class Magistrate II, Parappanagadi."[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.13/2017 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Parappanangadi. It is a prosecution initiated against the
petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the
2025:KER:48427
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 she was
convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
one months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four
lakhs only). The petitioner was also directed to pay the fine
amount, if any realized, to the complainant as compensation
under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. 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
2025:KER:48427
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 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 months
and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) with
a default sentence. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which
leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the
2025:KER:48427
considered opinion that the 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.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four lakhs only). In default of payment of fine,
the petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. If the compensation
amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 2 nd
respondent under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to
serve the sentence. Coercive steps against the
2025:KER:48427
petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above
period.
4. 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 2nd Respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
