Kerala High Court
Radhika Rani vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
2025:KER:44571
Crl.R.P.No.1532 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1532 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2017 IN Crl.A NO.66
OF 2017 OF SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2017 IN ST NO.189 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RADHIKA RANI
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. VINOD KUMAR, 35 YEARS, VIRAAD, CHUNKAM,
KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685 608.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
2025:KER:44571
Crl.R.P.No.1532 of 2017
2
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 M/SCONFLEX BANKERS
A FINANCIAL REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAJI T.P., S/O.
PRABHAKARAN, KAVUMKAL (H), MATTATHIPPARA KARA,
KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK - 685 584.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:44571
Crl.R.P.No.1532 of 2017
3
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in
S.T.No.189 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha. She
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. The
appeal preferred by her as Crl.A.No.66 of 2017 was
partly allowed by the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha by
modifying the sentence.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as
follows;
The complainant is a registered partnership
firm engaged in the business of money lending. The
husband of the accused one Vinod Kumar borrowed an
2025:KER:44571
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant on
12.09.2014, agreeing to pay interest at 12% per
annum. He also executed a demand promissory note
for the said amount. Since he did not repay the
amount, to discharge the said liability, the
accused issued Ext.P4 cheque dated 25.04.2015 for
Rs.3,71,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd, Thodupuzha
branch in favour of the complainant firm. When the
cheque was presented for collection, it got
dishonoured for the reason that 'funds are
insufficient'. The statutory notice issued to the
accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque, did
not evoke any response. Hence, the complainant
approached the trial court by filing S.T.No.189 of
2015.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the
complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8
documents were marked. When examined under Section
2025:KER:44571
313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against her
in evidence and contended that she is innocent. She
also stated that when her husband borrowed money
from the complainant, she had given the cheque in
question as security. Even though an opportunity
was granted to the accused to adduce evidence, no
evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an
appreciation of the evidence on record, found the
accused guilty and convicted her under Section 138
of the N.I.Act. The accused was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The accused
was also ordered to pay a compensation of
Rs.3,71,000/- to the complainant under Section
357(3) of Cr.P.C, with a default clause. In the
appeal preferred by the accused, the learned
Sessions Judge upheld the conviction, but modified
2025:KER:44571
the sentence to one of simple imprisonment till the
rising of the court under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act. The accused was also ordered to pay a
compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- to the complainant
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
4. Heard Adv.George Mathew, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner. There is no
representation for the 2nd respondent. Perused the
records.
5. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner contended that both the trial court as
well as the appellate court had failed to
appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and
has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against
the accused. He submitted that the cheque which has
been given as security by the accused, when her
2025:KER:44571
husband took a loan from the complainant has been
misused in this case and the trial court as well as
the appellate court has missed this point. He
further submitted that in any case, if this Court
finds the revision petitioner guilty, some time may
be granted to pay the compensation ordered by the
appellate court.
6. On going through the materials on record,
it can be seen that the complainant has examined
its power of attorney - PW1 to prove its case. PW1
has given evidence in tune with the averments in
the complaint. He deposed that the accused has
issued Ext.P4 cheque to discharge the liability of
her husband in the loan transaction which he had
with the complainant firm. He also stated that
Ext.P2 is the payment voucher given by the husband
of the accused evidencing the borrowal of
Rs.3,50,000/- and Ext.P3 is the demand promissory
2025:KER:44571
note executed by him. As stated earlier, it is the
case of the accused that Ext.P4 cheque is one which
she had given as security to the complainant when
her husband borrowed the money. But in order to
substantiate the said contention, the accused has
not adduced any evidence. It is again to be taken
note that even though PW1 has been cross-examined,
in extenso, nothing has been brought out in his
evidence which would probabilise the version of the
accused. Further the accused has not issued any
reply notice or has filed any complaint till date
against the complainant for misusing her cheque.
In such circumstances, the only conclusion which
can be reached is that the accused has failed to
rebut the statutory presumptions which are
available in favour of the complainant. Both the
trial court and the appellate court have properly
appreciated the evidence on record and there is no
2025:KER:44571
illegality or error in the same.
7. Now the next question to be considered is
regarding the sentence. Considering the fact that
the accused is a lady, the year of the transaction,
the amount involved and the facts and circumstances
of this case, I am of the view that the appellate
court has taken a most lenient view and has imposed
only a just and proper sentence on the accused. The
default sentence imposed also cannot be stated as
unjust or excessive.
Be that as it may, considering the submission
made by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and the quantum of the compensation
awarded, I deem it fit to grant four months' time
to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation
as ordered by the appellate court.
In the result, this criminal revision petition
is dismissed. But, the revision petitioner/accused
2025:KER:44571
is granted four months time to pay the compensation
as ordered by the appellate court.
sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Scl/
