Kerala High Court
Inspire Computers vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.303 OF
2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.119 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, CHALAKUDY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
INSPIRE COMPUTERS
REP. BY PROPRIETOR ARUN V.V., JAWAHAR JUNCTION,
PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 021.
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 DOT NET COMPUTERS
CHALAKUDY, REP. BY BENNY JOSE, S/O.SRAMBIKKAL
JOSEPH, PULIYANAM DESOM, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SRI SANAL P.RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.106 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
i. Set aside the judgment dated 24-11-2021 of the
Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda in Criminal
Appeal No.303/2017 which is against the judgment
dated 20-11-2017 in S.T.No.119/2017 of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Chalakudy and
acquit the Revision Petitioner of the offence
charged against him;
ii. Render such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
(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.119/2017 on
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Chalakudy. 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 court
and to pay compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
eighty eight thousand only) under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 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 counsel for the petitioner raised a contention
that statutory notice is not served to the petitioner. The
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
contention raised by the counsel is that the notice is sent in the
address of the firm. A perusal of the complaint would show
that the complainant knows the residential address of the
accused and therefore purposefully the notice is sent to the
address of the firm. Therefore the counsel submitted that the
judgment of the Apex Court in Alavi Haji v. Muhammed
[2007 (3) KLT 77 (SC)] is not applicable. The counsel for the
2nd respondent relied on the judgments of this Court in Abdul
Hameed v. State of Kerala [2020 (1) KLT 739] and Joshy
K.N. v. K.M.Abdul Shebi and Another [2012 (1) KHC 560].
It is true that in the complaint the residential address of the
accused is mentioned and the notice is sent to the address of
the firm. But this aspect is not challenged by the accused
before the trial court when the complainant was in the box.
This point is raised before this Court in this revision. I am not
inclined to accept such a contention at the revisional stage.
The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that
the statutory formalities under Section 138 of the NI Act are
complied. In such circumstances, I am not accepting the
contention of the petitioner.
2025:KER:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
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. Six 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:49088
CRL.REV.PET NO. 106 OF 2022
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 2 nd respondent in
accordance with law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
