Kerala High Court
Jeny Babu vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1196 of 2023
1
2025:KER:49170
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. 1196 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2023 IN Crl.A
NO.188 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT)-
II, KOTTAYAM / I ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2019 IN ST NO.100 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KANJIRAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JENY BABU
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O LATE BABU, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, MANIMALA P.O
MANIMALA VILLAGE, PIN - 686543
BY ADVS.
SMT.PREEJA V.P.
SRI.V.P.PRASANTH
SMT.VARSHA S.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1196 of 2023
2
2025:KER:49170
2 SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD
WITH ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT NO. 66, ARCOT ROAD,
KODAMPAKAM, CHENNAI-600024, IS HAVING ITS
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PARAKKAATTU BUILDING 1ST
FLOOR, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM , REPRESENTED BY
ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. SIBU,
PIN - 686001
BY ADV.
SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
PP, SRI. SANAL P RAJ
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1196 of 2023
3
2025:KER:49170
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1196 of 2023
-------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking
the following reliefs:
"to allow this revision petition and set aside
the judgment dated 19-09-2023 in the Court of the
Additional Sessions Judge-II (Special) Kottayam in
Criminal Appeal No.188/2019 and the judgment in
S.T.No.100/ 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Kanjirapally and acquit the revision
petitioner/appellant/accused in the interest of
justice."[SIC]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against
the 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.100/2016
2025:KER:49170
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Kanjirappally. 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
she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months and to pay a sum of Rs.2,56,181/-
(Rupees Two lakh fifty six thousand one hundred and eighty
one only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In
default of payment of the compensation 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 modified the sentence imposed by the trial
court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
2025:KER:49170
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
the 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 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:49170
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. All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be
kept in abeyance during the above period.
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 2nd
Respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
