(ii) such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper at the request of the revision petitioner.
2025:KER:48231
"[SIC]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the
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.486/2015 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba. 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 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In
default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner
was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed
2025:KER:48231
before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-
appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified
the 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 submitted that
there is material alteration in the cheque. It is submitted that
when the cheque amount is Rs.6,00,000/- and there is alteration
in number '6'. According to the petitioner, number '1' is
corrected as '6'. But this point is considered by the appellate
court in detail. The appellate court observed that, when the
figures are stated in the cheque in words, it is clearly stated that
it is 'six lakhs'. If that is the case, that contention need not be
entertained by this Court in a revisional jurisdiction.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
2025:KER:48231
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 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.
6. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on
the petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Six months time is
granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.
2025:KER:48231
All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period. If any amount is already
deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted
towards the compensation amount, and the same should be
disbursed to the Respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
