Kerala High Court
Jerone. N.J vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 499 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2024 IN
Crl.A NO.91 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT.-TRIAL
OF ABKARI ACT CASES/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
NEYYATTINKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
03.04.2023 IN ST NO.12 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -V, NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLAT/ACCUSED:
JERONE. N.J
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. NEPOLEON. M.,
T.C.NO.14/1910 (3), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695034
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 BABY GOMAZ
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY GOMAZ, EMMANUEL, BP
IX/450, AZHIPPIL, ANTHIYOOR, BALARAMAPURAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 695501
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
2
BY ADVS.
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
2025:KER:49413
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.499 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against
the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision
petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court.
2. The Revision petitioner is the accused in
S.T. No.12/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-V, Neyyattinkara. 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 till rising of the court and to pay a fine
2025:KER:49413
of Rs.10,000/-. Further the petitioner is directed to
deposit an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the
complainant as compensation under Section 357(3)
of Cr.PC. In default of payment of the compensation
amount, the petitioner is directed to take steps for
issuing a distress warrant against the asset of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Court,
Neyyattinkara as Crl. Appeal No. 91/2023. The
appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence,
confirmed the conviction and modified 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. I also heard the counsel appearing for
2025:KER:49413
the 2nd respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner raised two
points. The counsel submitted that the complainant
failed to prove the source to lend an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/-. This aspect was specifically cross-
examined by the counsel for the complainant when
PW1 was in the box is the submission. The appellate
court considered the matter in detail in paragraph
No.11 of the judgment. It will be better to extract the
same:
"It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that
PWI had no source of income at the time of alleged
lending of money. Several questions were put to
PW1 in the cross-examination with respect to this.
PW1 was working abroad. Thereafter he was running
textile business at Balaramapuram. PW1 was about
to purchase a plot of land. His wife had availed loan
from provident fund. He had pledged gold
ornarments for Rs. 3,00,000/- and also borrowed
2025:KER:49413
Rs.2,00,000/- from his personal account. He has
further explained that he pledged the gold with
Canara bank, Balaramapuram branch and also UCO
Bank. PW1 had deposed that the loan was given on
an assurance given by the appellant that the amount
will be repaid from his chitty amount. PW1 has not
purchased the property so far and discharged the
liability of gold loan. PW1 had to stop the textile
business. Therefore, he has shown that he had
source of income. In view of the admission that
appellant had borrowed money from PW1 and had
executed cheque, the burden is on accused to rebut
the presumption U/S 139 of the N.I. Act. There was
no reply for the lawyer notice issued by PW1.
Appellant did not call upon PW1 to pay off debt
received from him."
5. I see no reason to interfere with the above
findings. PW1 was working abroad and he was
running a textile business also. It is also the case of
PW1 that he was about to purchase a plot of land. It
2025:KER:49413
is also deposed by him that his wife had availed a
loan from provident fund. If these evidence is
available, the burden shifted to the accused disprove
the same. The other contention raised by the
petitioner is that D1 and D2 are the chief affidavit
and cross-examination of PW1 in two other cases. In
which also he is the complainant and the proceedings
was also under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According
to the petitioner such a huge amount cannot be
raised by PW1. I cannot agree with that contention.
First of all, this is a revision filed by the petitioner.
Two courts concurrently found against the petitioner.
The finding of facts need not be interfered by this
Court. Moreover, there is evidence to show that PW1
has got source. That contention is also not
sustainable.
6. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
2025:KER:49413
with the 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
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. As far as the sentence is
concerned, the sentence is already modified by the
appellate court. The sentence remains is to undergo
simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay
2025:KER:49413
a fine of Rs.7,00,000/- with a default sentence. I see
no reason to interfere with the same also.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned
judgment. Considering the request of the revision
petitioner, twelve months time is granted to pay
the fine amount and to serve the sentence. 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 fine
amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 2 nd
respondent, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
