Kerala High Court
Prof.Joseph Edward vs K.C.Varghese And Another on 21 May, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2221 of 2010
..1..
2025:KER:34680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2221 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2010 IN CRL.A NO.193 OF
2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST
TRACK COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 08.08.2008 IN CC NO.134 OF 2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PROF.JOSEPH EDWARD, S/O. C.J.EDWARD,
CHERUKADU, EDATHUWA P.O.,
EDATHUVA
BY ADV SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 K.C.VARGHESE, KALAPURACKAL VEEDU,
KODUMON, KIZHAKKU MURI,
KODUMON VILLAGE, PIN-691555.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
3 SALAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.K.C.VARGHESE,
KALAPURACKAL VEEDU, KODUMON
KUZHAKKU MURI,
KODUMON VILLAGE - 691 565
[ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
18.03.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 1 OF 2019]
BY ADVS.
P.K.SOYUZ
R.V.SREEJITH
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ N.R., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2221 of 2010
..2..
2025:KER:34680
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short, 'the N.I.Act').
2. The revision petitioner was the accused and the
respondent No.1 was the complainant in C.C.No.134 of 2003
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor
(for short, 'the trial court').
3. The case of the respondent No.1 in short is that the
petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and
towards the discharge of the said debt, Ext.P1 cheque was
issued, which on presentation was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under Section
138(b) of the N.I. Act was issued and received by the
petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution
was launched.
..3..
2025:KER:34680
4. Before the trial court, the respondent No.1 gave
evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side
of the defence, DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked.
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
one year and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation
to the respondent No.1 under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one
month. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence
of the trial court before the Additional District and Sessions
Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta (for short,
'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No. 193 of 2008. The
appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction
and sentence. This revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the
..4..
2025:KER:34680
respondent No.1/original complainant died and his legal
heir/wife was impleaded as additional respondent No.3.
6. I have heard Sri.R.Santhosh Babu, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.K.Soyuz, the learned counsel
for additional respondent No.3 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. 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 PW1 was cross-examined in
length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit his
testimony. The petitioner admitted his signature in Ext.P1
cheque. The defence set up by the petitioner is that he
borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from one Pramod Sam Mathew
and the cheque in question was issued in blank as security
towards the said transaction and the complainant misused the
cheque and a false complaint was filed. However, no evidence
has been adduced to substantiate the said contention. The
..5..
2025:KER:34680
respondent No.1 has succeeded in proving the transaction,
execution and issuance of the cheque. No rebuttal evidence
has been adduced by the petitioner 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 findings of conviction.
8. What remains is sentence. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already
deposited Rs.50,000/- before the trial court towards the
compensation amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks some more time to pay the balance compensation. The
learned counsel further submitted that considering the fact
that the transaction between the parties are civil in nature, the
substantive sentence may be reduced to till the rising of the
court. I find some force in the said argument.
Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of
confirming the conviction and reducing the substantive
..6..
2025:KER:34680
sentence till the rising of the court. The petitioner is granted
six months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the
sentence till the rising of the court and to deposit the balance
compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh
only). The trial court is directed to release Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) deposited by the petitioner to the
additional respondent No.3.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
