Kerala High Court
Jiji Varghese vs Jinu Thomas on 13 March, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 309 of 2025
..1..
2025:KER:21237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 309 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2025 IN Crl.A NO.300 OF 2019
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII,
ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2019 IN ST
NO.288 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD
REVISION PETITIONER/
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JIJI VARGHESE
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,
44/2203, D2, THELEKKADAN VEETTIL,
ST.ANTONYS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR.PO,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
K.J.SUNIL
BABU SALIH
T.V.AATHIRA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/
COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 JINU THOMAS
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.K.V.THOMAS,
REKOCHU KALLARACKAL HOUSE,
NEAR HOTEL HARITHAGIRI, KALPETTA.PO,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673121
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 309 of 2025
..2..
2025:KER:21237
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SREEJA V., SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 309 of 2025
..3..
2025:KER:21237
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act').
2. The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint as
S.T.No.288 of 2017 against the petitioner under Section 142
of the N.I.Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kakkanad (for short, 'the trial court'). The case of the
respondent No.1 in the complaint is that the petitioner
executed Ext.P7 agreement for lease in his favour with
respect to a building bearing No.10/707A stating that he is
the absolute owner of the building and paid Rs.7,00,000/-
towards consideration. Subsequently, he came to know that
the petitioner was not the owner of the building and he had
..4..
2025:KER:21237
no right to execute the lease deed. When he demanded
Rs.7,00,000/- back, the petitioner gave back Rs.80,000/- and
towards the balance amount of Rs.6,20,000/-, issued three
cheques. Ext.P1 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is one of those
cheques. When he presented Ext.P1 cheque for collection, it
was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though
statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was
issued, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution was
lodged.
3. Before the trial court, the respondent No.1 himself
gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. No
defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court
found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I.Act
and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,45,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner
..5..
2025:KER:21237
challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court
before the Additional District and Sessions Court-VII,
Ernakulam (for short, 'the appellate court') as Crl.Appeal No.
300 of 2019. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This
revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of
the trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. I have heard Sri.S.Sunil Kumar (Palakkad), the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Sreeja, the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. To prove the case of the respondent No.1, he
himself gave evidence as PW1. He deposed in tune with the
averments in the complaint. Even though he has been cross-
examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to
discredit his testimony.
6. The petitioner does not dispute that he executed
Ext.P7 lease agreement and received Rs.7,00,000/-.
..6..
2025:KER:21237
However, according to him, the said amount was received in
respect of some other transaction. But, there is no evidence
to substantiate this contention. The petitioner also admits the
signature in Ext.P1 cheque. In fact, there is no challenge
against the execution of Ext.P1. The respondent No.1 has
succeeded in proving the transaction, execution and the
issuance of the cheque. The petitioner did not adduce any
rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption available to the
respondent No.1 under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act.
Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent
finding of conviction.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence
imposed by the trial court is excessive. Hence, the
substantive sentence is reduced till the rising of the court
retaining the fine amount with the default sentence. However,
the petitioner is granted three months' time to appear before
..7..
2025:KER:21237
the trial court to receive the sentence till the rising of the
court and to deposit the fine amount.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
