Kerala High Court
Sreekanth Kollattu vs Surendran on 16 June, 2025
2025:KER:42344
Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 7 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2014 IN ST NO.4101 OF
2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PALAKKAD
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.09.2015 IN Crl.A NO.44
OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED/ 3rd APPELLANT :
SREEKANTH KOLLATTU
AGED 32 YEARS
PARTNER, DESIGN POINT BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,
OPP.SBT BANK, KODANNUR THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SHRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT AND STATE:
1 SURENDRAN
2025:KER:42344
Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2016
2
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.KITTA, KOOMANKAD HOUSE, MATHUR.P.O., PALAKKAD-
678 571.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N (GP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42344
Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2016
3
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the 3rd accused in
S.T.No.4101 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad. The
revision petitioner, along with two other accused,
stood trial before that court for committing an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act)
and was convicted and sentenced thereunder.
Thereafter, the revision petitioner along with the
other accused preferred Crl.A.No.44 of 2014
challenging the afore conviction and sentence. The
Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, by judgment
dated 08.09.2015, allowed the appeal in part and
modified the sentence, after upholding the
conviction.
2. The case of the complainant is that the 1st
2025:KER:42344
accused is a partnership firm, registered under the
name and style 'Design Point Builders and
Developers' and the 2nd and 3rd accused are its
active partners. As part of settlement of
Rs.1,75,000/- towards the complainant, the 2nd and
3rd accused issued a cheque on 23.04.2012 drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Valappad Branch for an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- in the account maintained by the
1st accused. Subsequently, on 30.04.2012, the
accused issued another cheque for Rs.75,000/- drawn
on the same bank. Both the cheques when presented
for collection, returned, for the reason that
'funds are insufficient'. The statutory notice
issued also did not evoke any response. Hence, the
complainant approached the trial court by filing
S.T.No.4101 of 2012, with regard to the cheque
issued for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
complainant also filed S.T.No.2855 of 2012 as
2025:KER:42344
regards the cheque for Rs.75,000/-.
3. The trial court jointly tried both the
cases. From the side of the complainant, PW1 was
examined and Exts.P1 to P10 series documents were
marked. When the accused were examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they took a stand of total
denial. Even though an opportunity was granted
to adduce defence evidence, no evidence was
adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of
the evidence on record, found the accused guilty in
both the cases for committing an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and convicted them
thereunder.
4. In S.T.No.4101 of 2012, the 1st accused was
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and accused
Nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month under
2025:KER:42344
were also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- each as
compensation to the complainant under Section
357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment in S.T.No.4101 of
2012, all the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.44 of
2014 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The
Additional Sessions Court, by judgment dated
08.09.2015, upheld the conviction, but modified the
sentence and ordered the 1st accused to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- and accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo
simple imprisonment till the rising of the court
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The 2nd and 3rd
accused were also directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant under Section
357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
6. It is aggrieved by the judgment in
2025:KER:42344
Crl.Appeal N0.44 of 2014, the 3rd accused has
preferred this Criminal revision petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner. Perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner contended that both the trial court and
the appellate court did not properly appreciate the
evidence on record and has arrived at a wrong
conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued
that the cheque which has been given as security
has been misused in this case and the trial court
as well as the appellate court missed this point.
He further submitted that in any case if this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent
findings rendered by both the trial court and the
appellate court, some time may be granted to the
revision petitioner to pay the compensation
ordered.
2025:KER:42344
9. The materials on record goes to show that
in order to prove the case of the complainant, PW1
has been examined and Exts.P1 to P10 series have
been marked. The evidence of PW1 regarding the
transactions, issuance and execution of Ext.P1
cheque is credible and cogent. His evidence would
go to show that Ext.P1 cheque along with Ext.P6
cheque were issued as part of settlement of
accounts, between him and the accused. It also
reveals that both the accused and the complainant
were having business transactions in timber and
that, the liability has arisen in that transaction.
It is again to be taken note that signature in
Ext.P1 cheque and its possession by the complainant
are admitted by accused Nos.2 and 3, who admittedly
are the partners of the 1st accused. Even though an
attempt has been made from the side of the accused
to prove that the cheque has been issued as
2025:KER:42344
security, the accused has failed in it. The accused
has also not adduced any evidence to substantiate
his contentions. In such circumstances, I do not
find any ground to interfere with the concurrent
finding of guilt reached against the accused by
both the trial court and the appellate court.
10. The only question which now remains to be
considered is the sentence which has been imposed
on the revision petitioner. As stated earlier, the
revision petitioner has been ordered to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, with a default clause.
Considering the year of the transaction, the cheque
amount and the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the
appellate court is only just and reasonable and no
interference is required with it. But considering
2025:KER:42344
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, I am of the view that some
reasonable time can be granted to the revision
petitioner to pay off the compensation to the
complainant.
In the result, this revision petition is
dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted time
till 08.09.2025 to remit/pay the compensation as
ordered by the appellate court.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Scl/
