Kerala High Court
Suvarnakumari vs Vijayamma Krishnankutty on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:48760
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. 149 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2021 IN Crl.A
NO.138 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,
MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2018
IN ST NO.18 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
SUVARNAKUMARI
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADMINISTRATOR,
ANJANEYA SARASWATHI VIDHYA MANDIR,
VAIPUR P.O., MALLPPALLY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689588
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SHRI.GEETHU KRISHNAN
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 VIJAYAMMA KRISHNANKUTTY
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O KRISHNANKUTTY, MADEENA COTTAGE,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, AREEKKARA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689505
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760
..2..
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
2025:KER:48760
..3..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.149 of 2023
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed
seeking the following reliefs:
" to allow this revision and set aside the judgment
dated 30.11.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 138/2018
on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge - I,
Mavelikkara which upheld the conviction and
sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/appellant/accused no.2 as per the
Judgment dated 15.05.2018 in S.T No.18/2017 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Chengannur, and acquit the revision-
petitioner/appellant/ accused no.2, 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
S.T. No.18/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class
2025:KER:48760
..4..
Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur. 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
a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) and the
fine amount if recovered shall be given to the complainant
as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In
default of payment of the fine amount, 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.
2025:KER:48760
..5..
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 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.
2025:KER:48760
..6..
5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the
petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh nly) 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 fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh only). In default of payment of
2025:KER:48760
..7..
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
respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to
serve the sentence.
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 Respondent in accordance with law.
5. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance during the above period.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ds 04.07.2025
