Kerala High Court
Babu Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..1..
2025:KER:37591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1243 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2005 IN Crl.A NO.98 OF 2003
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2003 IN CC NO.36 OF 2000 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BABU THOMAS,
MECHERIL HOUSE,
KATTAPPANA VILLAGE,
NIRAPPELKADA BAHGAM,
KATTAPPANA P.O., KATTAPPANA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS/STATE/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2 SUNNY JOSEPH, EDAYAL HOUSE
KALVARIMOUNT KARA, 8TH MILE,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..2..
2025:KER:37591
SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER
SHRI.YUSUF SACHIN
SANAL P RAJ - PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.05.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1271/2005, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..3..
2025:KER:37591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1271 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2004 IN Crl.A NO.97 OF 2003
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2003 IN CC NO.35 OF 2000 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN
THE CRL.APPEAL AND ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.35/2000:
BABU THOMAS
MACHERIL HOUSE,
KATTAPPANA VILLAGE,
NIRAPPALKADA BHAGAM,
KATTAPPANA P.O.
BY ADVS.
VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
JACOB SEBASTIAN
PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.97/2003
AND COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.35/2000 AND THE STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THODUPUZHA.
2 SUNNY JOSEPH
EDAYAL HOUSE
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..4..
2025:KER:37591
KALVARIMOUNT KARA, 8TH MILE,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE.
SRI.SANAL.P.RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.05.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1243/2005, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..5..
2025:KER:37591
ORDER
Since both these revision petitions are connected and
the parties are one and the same, they are disposed of by a
common order.
2. The revision petitioner in both cases faced
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act') in two cases: C.C.No.35 of
2010 and C.C.No. 36 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana (for short, 'the trial
court'). Those cases were registered based on a private
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein.
3. The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
There were business transactions between the complainant
and the accused and the accounts were settled by them. The
settlement was effected under Ext.P1 agreement. The
petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.90,000/-. Towards
that, two cheques were issued, which on presentation were
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..6..
2025:KER:37591
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Those two cheques
are Ext.P2 in both cases. The trial court on appreciation of
evidence found that the complainant had proved the
execution of the cheques and accordingly, the petitioner was
convicted in both cases for the offence under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay the cheque amount
as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C., in default, to suffer default sentence in both cases. In
the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Additional
Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (for short, 'the appellate court'),
the conviction was confirmed, but the substantive sentence
was reduced till the rising of the court. These revision
petitions have been filed challenging the judgments of the
trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. I have heard Sri.C.Varghese Kuriakose, the learned
counsel for the petitioner in both cases, Sri.Sreelal N. Warrier,
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..7..
2025:KER:37591
the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Sanal
P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself
gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P8 (in C.C.No.36 of 2000)
and Exts.P1 to P10 (in C.C.No.35 of 2000) were marked. On
the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to
D6 (in C.C.No.36 of 2000) and Exts.D1 to D5 (in C.C.No.35 of
2000) were marked. PW1 deposed in tune with the
averments in the complaint. Ext.P1 was also marked on the
side of the complainant to corroborate the testimony of PW1
that the entire account between the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent was settled and two cheques were issued. Both
the trial court as well as the appellate court believed the
testimony of PW1 as well as Ext.P1 agreement. I see no
reason to interfere with the said factual finding in these
revision petitions. The evidence on record would show that
the complainant had succeeded in providing the transaction,
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos. 1243 & 1271 of 2005
..8..
2025:KER:37591
execution and issuance of the cheques. The complainant is
entitled to the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
the N.I.Act. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. Accordingly,
both criminal revision petitions are dismissed.
However, the petitioner is granted six months' time to
appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment till
the rising of the court and to deposit the compensation
amount in both cases.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
