Kerala High Court
Anitha K.C vs Jayaprakash on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:48732
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. 994 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2023 IN Crl.A
NO.89 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II,
ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2021 IN
ST NO.34 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-III, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT.ACCUSED:
ANITHA K.C.
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O CHOTHI, KARIYATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU
P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KABIL CHANDRAN
SMT.R.ANJALI
SMT.AAYSHATH NAJILA SCHEMNAD
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 & STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 JAYAPRAKASH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, AYYANKULANGARA HOUSE,
NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688538
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.994 of 2023
2025:KER:48732
..2..
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.994 of 2023
2025:KER:48732
..3..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.994 of 2023
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed
seeking the following reliefs:
" to set aside the Judgment dated 17.04.2021 in S.T.
No. 34/2019 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Cherthala and later confirmed by the
Additional Sessions Court - II, Alappuzha by
Judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Crl. Appeal. No.
89/2021."[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.34/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Cherthala. It is a prosecution
initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
2025:KER:48732
..4..
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 pay a
fine of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh fifty thousand
only) and the fine amount if recovered shall be given to
the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)
Cr.P.C. 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.
2025:KER:48732
..5..
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
raised a contention that the complainant has no source to
lend an amount of Rs.4 lakh. But this Court perused the
evidence adduced by the complainant. The evidence of
the complainant would show that he was a canteen
contractor and the canteen was attached to a hospital. He
was also working in a semi-government establishment. He
also gave evidence that he was having fixed deposit with a
District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha for an amount of
Rs.8 lakh. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the complainant has not produced any
document to show that he has such means. If that is the
case, such a burden to prove is not there on the
complainant. Once complianant adduced evidence, the
burden shifts to the accused. The accused has not
adduced any evidence to rebut that presumption.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no
2025:KER:48732
..6..
merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. Moreover
two courts have concurrently found against the petitioner.
5. 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 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.
2025:KER:48732
..7..
6. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment.
Twelve months time is granted to pay the amount and to
serve the sentence.
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 Respondent in accordance with law.
Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ds 03.07.2025
