Kerala High Court
Pradeep R Menon vs Sebastian S Edakkara on 8 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.972 of 2024
2025:KER:50369
1
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. 972 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2024 IN
Crl.A NO.103 OF 2021 OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, THODUPUZHA / II ADDITIONAL MACT/ADDL.RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY -III, THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.204 OF 2017
OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 PRADEEP R MENON
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O RABINDRANATH, KADAVATH
HOUSE, RANDAR PO; THOTTAMCHERIL, KAIMATTOM,
MUVATTUPUZHA., PIN - 686661
2 SHEELA
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O RABINDRANATH, KADAVATH
HOUSE, RANDAR PO; THOTTAMCHERIL, KAIMATTOM,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.VIVEK
SMT.RENEETA VINU
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.972 of 2024
2025:KER:50369
2
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 SEBASTIAN S EDAKKARA
AGED 56 YEARS, EDAKKARA HOUSE,
MOONNUNKAVAYAL, ARAKKULAM PO, MOOLAMATTOM.,
PIN - 685589
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SMT. S. SEETHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.972 of 2024
2025:KER:50369
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.972 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed
against the judgment dated 29.11.2021 in ST
No.204/2017 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thodupuzha and the judgment dated
17.07.2024 in Crl. Appeal No.103/2021 on the files of
the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thodupuzha.
2. The revision petitioners are the accused in
ST No.204/2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. It was a prosecution
initiated against the petitioners under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act').
Herein after the revision petitioners are mentioned as
accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively and the 1 st
2025:KER:50369
respondent is mentioned as the complainant. The
averments in the complaint which is narrated in
paragraph No.2 of the trial court judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"2. The complainant is a business man. A1 is an
Advocate. A2 is a home maker and the mother of A1.
Sri. Ravindranath P., the father of A1 and husband of
A2, is a close friend of complainant. The complainant
and accused are known to each other. Both accused
along with Ravindranath approached complainant and
borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- from him as a
hand loan and promised to return the same as and
when demanded by the complainant. When the
complainant demanded the amount, the accused
jointly issued cheque bearing No. 000104 dated
15.02.2017 drawn on the account maintained jointly
in Central Bank of India, Arakkulam branch, for an
amount of Rs.5,25,000/- in discharge of the liability. It
was signed by both accused. They also promised that
they had sufficient fund in their account and cheque
2025:KER:50369
would be honoured. Though the complainant
presented the cheque for encashment at Cental Bank
of India, Arakkulam branch, it was dishonoured due to
insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused.
The Central Bank of India issued memo dated
15.02.2017 in this regard. Intimating the fact of
dishonour of cheque and calling upon the accused to
pay the debt amount, the complainant sent a legal
notice dated 18.02.2017 to the accused. A2 accepted
the notice. The legal notice sent to A1 was returned
with the endorsement "unclaimed". A1 wilfully evaded
the notice. Both accused jointly sent a reply notice
stating false and untenable contentions. Thus the
accused are alleged to have committed the offence
punishable U/s 138 of N I Act."
3. To substantiate the case, two witnesses
were examined on the side of the complainant and
Exts.P1 to P7 were also marked. Exts.D1 to D3 are the
exhibits marked from the side of the accused. After
going through the evidence and documents, the trial
2025:KER:50369
court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the
NI Act and the accused are sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months each and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,62,500/- each. In default of payment of the
fine amount, the accused is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of five months. If the fine
amount is realised, there is a direction to give the
same to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.PC.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,
the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions
Court, Thodupuzha. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Thodupuzha considered the appeal and confirmed the
conviction and modified the sentence. Aggrieved by
the same, this revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Even though, notice is issued to the 1 st
respondent, there is no appearance for the 1 st
respondent.
2025:KER:50369
6. The short point raised by the petitioners is
that the appellate court has not considered the appeal
after applying its mind. A perusal of the appellate
court's judgment would show that, the appellate court
has not considered the evidence available in the case.
The counsel for the petitioners takes me through
paragraph Nos.9 and 12 of the appellate court
judgment.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners. It will be better to extract the relevant
portion of paragraph No.9 which is pointed out by the
petitioners:
"In the instant case, though the appellant received
Ext.P3 lawyer notice as evident from the postal
receipt, they did not send a reply denying the
transaction. If the amount covered by the cheque is
not due to the respondent, the appellants could have
sent a reply stating that the amount shown in the
cheque is exorbitant and no such amount is due from
2025:KER:50369
them to the 1st respondent. But the appellants
willfully evaded from replying to the Ext.P3 lawyer
notice. It means they accepted the factum of
issuance of Ext.P1 cheque towards a legally
recoverable debt due from them. In the above
circumstances, the appellants are unsuccessful in
denying the execution of the cheque."
8. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on
the basis that there is no reply filed by the petitioners.
But here is a case where the accused produced the
reply notice as Ext.D1 and Exts.D2 and D3 are also
produced to show that it is delivered to the lawyer.
Therefore, the above finding of the learned Sessions
Judge is without looking into the file records available
in the case.
9. Paragraph No.12 of the appellate court's
judgment is also extracted hereunder:
"12. In such circumstances, I find no illegality or
impropriety in the order of conviction passed by the
2025:KER:50369
trial court. The learned Magistrate ordered the
appellants to pay interest for the amount covered by
the cheque. In my view, the 1 st respondent is not
entitled for interest as there is no such relief sought
for in the complaint. Therefore, the 1st respondent is
entitled only to realize the amount covered by the
cheque. Hence the sentence is liable to be modified
to the extent of reducing the jail sentence to
imprisonment till the rising of court and the 1st
respondent is entitled to realize the amount covered
by the cheque from the appellants. Point Nos. 1 to 3
are found accordingly."
10. The amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque is
Rs.5,25,000/-. There are two accused in this case.
Therefore, the said amount is directed to be paid by
the two accused equally. There is no interest
calculated by the trial court while imposing the fine
amount. A reading of the above paragraph would
show that the interest is also reckoned while fixing the
2025:KER:50369
fine. These two aspects would show that the appellate
court has not applied its mind while considering the
appeal. I am of the considered opinion that the
appellate court judgment is to be set aside and the
appellate court has to reconsider the appeal, in
accordance with law.
Therefore, this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed in
the following manner:
1. The judgment dated 17.07.2024 in
Crl. Appeal No.103/2021 on the file of
the IVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Thodupuzha is set aside and Crl.
Appeal No.103/2021 is restored to
file.
2. The IVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Thodupuzha is directed to reconsider
Crl. Appeal No.103/2021 and dispose
of the same, as expeditiously as
2025:KER:50369
possible, in accordance with law, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and the 1st respondent.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
