Kerala High Court
Sajimon.K.A vs Kuruvilla Mani on 8 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.793 of 2021
1
2025:KER:49453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 793 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2021 IN Crl.A
NO.190 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2019 IN ST
NO.1488 OF 2015 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SAJIMON.K.A.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. ANIYAPPAN.M., KANJIRATHIL HOUSE,
PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SMT.SAIPOOJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 KURUVILLA MANI,
S/O. MANI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. MANARCADU FUELS
MANARCADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 683 561.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031.
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.793 of 2021
2
2025:KER:49453
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
SRI.ANIL D.KARTHA
SHRI.SURESH G.
SHRI.SHARATH ELDO PHILIP
SMT.NAMITA PHILSON
SHRI.SREEKUMAR G.
SHRI.ANANTHASANKAR A. KARTHA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.793 of 2021
3
2025:KER:49453
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.793 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.
No.1488/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. 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 revision petitioner is the accused and
the 1st respondent herein is the complainant in the above
case. (hereinafter parties are mentioned in accordance with
their status before the trial court).
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The accused had money transaction with the
complainant. The accused, in discharge of his legally
enforceable debt towards the complainant, issued a cheque
2025:KER:49453
dated 16.66.2015 of HDFC Bank, ATPAR Branch, Kottayam
for Rs.12 lakhs. The complainant presented the cheque
through its bankers SBT, Manarcadu. The cheque was
dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient." On
05.09.2015, the Bank intimated the complainant on
dishonouring of the cheque. On 15.09.2015, the complainant
issued a registered Lawyer's Notice to the accused. On
01.10.2015, the accused received the notice. The accused,
however, did not pay the cheque amount and therefore,
committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. To substantiate the case, PW1 to PW4 were
examined. Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the
complainant. After going through the evidence and
documents, the trial court found that the accused is guilty of
the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the
court and to pay a fine of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve
2025:KER:49453
lakh fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the
accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
five months. If the fine amount is realized, there was a
direction to the accused to pay the same to the complainant
as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Additional
Sessions Court-V, Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Judge,
after going through the evidence and documents confirmed
the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, this
Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/accused, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent/complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner/accused filed an
argument note. The counsel submitted that the execution of
the cheque is not proved in this case. It is also the case of
the accused that, even if this Court found that the execution
of the cheque is proved, the accused has rebutted the
2025:KER:49453
presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act by cross-
examining the complainant. Several contentions were raised
by the counsel for the petitioner/accused to support the
above two grounds.
6. Counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/complainant supported the impugned judgments
and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the
impugned judgments.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
accused, the complainant and the Public Prosecutor. The
first point raised by the accused is that the execution of the
cheque is not proved. According to the accused, PW2 is the
witness relied on by the complainant to prove the execution
of the cheque. It is submitted that, he is not a reliable
witness. It is also submitted that PW2 is an interested
witness and he is a friend of PW1. As far as the execution of
a cheque is concerned, only the friends or relatives of PW1
will be available at that time. This Court cannot say that
2025:KER:49453
independent witness should be present at the time of
execution of the cheque. The trial court and the appellate
court concurrently found that the execution of the cheque is
proved in the light of the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The
jurisdiction of the revisional court is very limited. This
Court need not re-appreciate the evidence unless there is
illegality, irregularity and impropriety. Several
circumstances were pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner/accused after taking me through the evidence
adduced by PW2. I am of the considered opinion that this
Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. There is nothing
to interfere with the concurrent finding of the trial court and
the appellate court as far as the execution of the cheque is
concerned.
8. The next contention raised by the accused is
that the accused has rebutted the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act. But I cannot agree with the
same. Once the execution of the cheque is proved, the
2025:KER:49453
presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is attracted.
Admittedly, the accused has not adduced any evidence to
rebut the presumption. The contention of the accused is
that, by cross examining the witnesses by the complainant,
the presumption is rebutted. This Court carefully perused
the deposition of the witnesses which is made available by
the counsel for the petitioner/accused. I am of the
considered opinion that no material is brought out by the
accused to rebut the presumption.
9. Counsel for the petitioner/accused relied on
the judgment of this Court in Ahammed P.K. v. State of
Kerala [2024 (3) KHC 176] and submitted that, when a part
payment of the debt is paid after the cheque was drawn, but
before the cheque is encahsed, such payment must be
endorsed in the cheque under Section 56 of the NI Act and
the cheque cannot be presented for encashment without
recording the part payment. Counsel for the
petitioner/accused submitted that, in page No.5 of the
2025:KER:49453
deposition of PW1, it is stated that the accused had made
part payment towards his liability. But there is nothing to
show that it was a part payment of the debt after the cheque
was drawn but before the cheque was encashed. In such
circumstances, the dictum laid down by this Court is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the contention of
the accused that the presumption under Section 139 of the
NI Act is rebutted. From an overall perusal of the entire
evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that the
complainant proved the ingredients of the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused has not send any
reply to the statutory notice. No defence evidence is also
adduced by the accused. In such circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the
appellate court.
10. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
2025:KER:49453
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
is 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 judgments. Ten
months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the
sentence. All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be
2025:KER:49453
kept in abeyance during the above period.
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 1 st Respondent in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
