Kerala High Court
Jayadas vs Vijayan on 18 June, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2020 IN Crl.A
NO.190 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / II ADDITIONAL MACT ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1017 OF 2009 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER:
JAYADAS
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.DASAYYAN, ELAVINVILA VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA
KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695 042.
BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VIJAYAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.ASSARIAH, NAVODAYAM, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 042.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SUDHEER
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P..No.94 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
i. Call for the records relating to the order dated
11.12.2020 in Crl. Appeal No. 190/2017 of the
Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V,
Thiruvananthapuram confirming the Order dated
05.10.2017 in S.T No: 1017/2009 passed by the
Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-l,
Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District and to
acquit the petitioner by setting aside the sentence
and conviction dated 11.12.2020 in Crl. Appeal No.
190/2017 confirming the Order dated 05.10.2017 in
S.T No: 1017/2009.
ii. To pass such other order or reliefs as this Hon'ble
court deems fit in the interest of justice.
(SIC)
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court.
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.1017/2009 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Neyyattinkara. 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 he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). In
default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner was directed
to undergo simple imprisonment for three 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 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner raised mainly
two points. The counsel submitted that Ext.P3 notice does not
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
contain any particulars about the transaction. The counsel also
submitted that the purpose of issuing notice under Section 138
of the NI Act is to inform the accused about the particulars of
the debt. If the same is not there in the notice, the prosecution
itself is not sustainable. The counsel relied on the judgment of
this Court in Divakaran K.K. v. State of Kerala and
Another [ILR 216 (4) Ker 643]. This Court considered that
contention in detail. This Court also perused the impugned
judgment and the evidence available. In paragraph 13 of the
trial court judgment, this point is considered in detail. The trial
court distinguished the judgment based on the facts. The
appellate court also considered this matter in paragraph 15 of
the impugned judgment. I see no reason to interfere with the
same invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The
other point is regarding the entry in the cheque. It is submitted
that there is difference in the entry as far as the handwriting
and ink are concerned. But two courts found against the
revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that this
Court need not interfere with the same also invoking the
revisional jurisdiction.
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
5. 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 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.
6. What remains is the sentence imposed on the
petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs 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.
2025:KER:43521
CRL.REV.PET NO. 94 OF 2021
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 a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only). In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. If the fine
amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to
the respondent under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
3. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount
and to serve the sentence.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
