Kerala High Court
George Varghese vs Klm Fincorp Ltd on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:49040
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. 223 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.38 OF 2022 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2022 IN CC NO.210 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE), ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE VARGHESE
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, OLIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KOLLAMKUDY MUGAL
ROAD, VALAMGOTTU LANE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SHRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SRI.P.M.MANASH
SMT.NESY A.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KLM FINCORP LTD.
MATHEWSON TRADE CENTRE, KALOOR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY
ITS POA, DHANEEB K.S., S/O BAPPU, CHAKKUTHARA HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682017
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49040
CRL.REV.PET NO.223 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.223 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking
the following reliefs:
"to set aside the judgment and sentence dated
12/01/22 in CC No.210/2019 on the file of the
Judicial First-class Magistrate's Court-III, Ernakulam
& The judgment of conviction and sentence dated
23/11/24 in Crl. Appeal No. 38/2022 on the file of
the Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Ernakulam, by
allowing this Memorandum of Criminal Revision
Petition, 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 C.C. No.210/2019 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam.
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
2025:KER:49040
CRL.REV.PET NO.223 OF 2025
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.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty
Thousand Only). 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 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
appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter
2025:KER:49040
CRL.REV.PET NO.223 OF 2025
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 three
months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand 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 compensation of
Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand
Only). In default of payment of compensation, the
petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment
2025:KER:49040
CRL.REV.PET NO.223 OF 2025
for three months. If the compensation amount is
deposited, the same shall be paid to the 1 st respondent
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to
serve the sentence.
4. All coercive steps against the 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 amount, and the same should be
disbursed to the 1st respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
