Sudheer Babu vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 687 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 687 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Sudheer Babu vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                    2025:KER:49675

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

        MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947

                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 960 OF 2024

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2024 IN Crl.A NO.125 OF

2023 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

 02.12.2022 IN ST NO.159 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

                      CLASS -II,PERINTHALMANNA


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

           SUDHEER BABU
           AGED 33 YEARS
           S/O.HYDRU HAJI, AMADAN HOUSE, KUTTIYIL, VANIYAMBALAM
           POST, WANDOOR, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
           PIN - 679339


           BY ADVS.
           SRI.P.P.BIJU
           SMT.SAFNA P.S.



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2      HASKER SYED
           AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SYED, KKS MANZIL, KITTIYIL,
           VANIYAMBALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
           PIN - 679339

           SR PP SMT SEETHA


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         2025:KER:49675
CRL.REV.PET NO.960 OF 2024

                                    2

                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------
                  Crl.Rev.Pet. No.960 of 2024
                     -------------------------------
              Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025


                                ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the

following relief:

" Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the records, set aside the judgments in ST No.159/2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, dated 02.12.2022 and confirming the conviction and sentence in Crl.Appeal No.125/2023 of Sessions Court, Manjeri dated 22.08.2024 passed by the trial court and appellate court and acquit the petitioner/accused to secure the ends 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.159/2018 on the file of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. 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 2025:KER:49675 CRL.REV.PET NO.960 OF 2024

Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months and to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs

Twenty Five Thousand Only). In default of payment of the fine

amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for two 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, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and

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 2025:KER:49675 CRL.REV.PET NO.960 OF 2024

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.

5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the

petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for six months

and to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Five

Thousand Only) 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.7,25,000/-

(Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only). In

default of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to 2025:KER:49675 CRL.REV.PET NO.960 OF 2024

undergo simple imprisonment for two months. If the fine

amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 2nd

respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Twelve months time is granted to pay the amount and

to serve the sentence.

4. All coercive steps against the revision petitioner shall be

kept in abeyance during the above period.

5. 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 2nd respondent in