Kerala High Court
Deepak P.V vs Deepak Damodaran Nair on 3 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
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. 561 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2021 IN Crl.A
NO.349 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-II/ I ADDITIONAL MACT,
KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
15.07.2019 IN ST NO.7 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
DEEPAK P.V
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PADAMVAYALIL, ERANHIKKAL
P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 303.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SHRI.M.S.DILEEP
SMT.C.P.ROOPA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 DEEPAK DAMODARAN NAIR,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, RAKESH VILLA, THIRUVAGOOR
P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 304.
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
2
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.561 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
to call for the records of the impugned judgment
and set aside the conviction and sentence passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode
in S.T.No: 7/2019 and confirmed by the Hon'ble 1st
additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.A.
No:349/2019, dated 10/9/2021 and to acquit the
revision petitioner, 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.7/2019 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. It is
a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
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
imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only). 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.
4. The counsel for the petitioner raised a short point.
The counsel submitted that the complainant fails to prove that
he has sufficient source to lend Rs.1,50,000/-. The counsel also
submitted that the complainant produced Ext.P7 account
statement of one P.Sajitha, and that account statement is
proved through PW2 Bank Manager. The counsel further
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
submitted that the amount was withdrawn from that account on
27.06.2017 and the amount was alleged to be paid to the
petitioner only on 24.08.2017. That itself improbabilise the case
of the complainant is the case. I cannot agree with the same.
Two courts, i.e., fact finding courts concurrently found in favour
of the complainant that the complainant has source to lend the
amount. Moreover, there is no improbability as suggested by
the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained
money from one P.Sajitha and that amount is given to the
petitioner. I do not think that there is any improbability in that
case. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a
reply notice from the side of the petitioner. Even if there is a
reply notice, the petitioner has not adduced any defence
evidence to rebut the presumption. I am not in a position to
accept that contention. The counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the details of the transaction is not mentioned in
the complaint or in the evidence. As I mentioned earlier, two
courts concurrently found against the petitioner on all these
aspects and it is found that the petitioner is guilty under Section
138 of the NI Act. I see no reason to interfere.
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
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.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed,
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Eight months time is
granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence. All
coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance
during the above period.
2025:KER:48688
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2021
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 respondent in accordance
with law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
