Kerala High Court
K.T.Joseph vs P.R.Vasudeva Pai on 24 October, 2025
2025:KER:79458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.3130 OF 2006
JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2006 IN Crl.A NO.242 OF 2005 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2005 IN CC NO.896
OF 2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,
CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K.T.JOSEPH
KUMARTHUSSERY, C.M.C.-3, CHERTHALA.
BY ADV
DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/
COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 P.R.VASUDEVA PAI
RAM NIVAS, C.M.C.-26, CHERTHALA.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.
SMT MAYA M.N., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:79458
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3130 of 2006
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
---------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.3130 of 2006
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.896 of 2001 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Cherthala. He
was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the
commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. As per the judgment dated 07.03.2005, the
petitioner was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one month
coupled with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.16,000/- under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid
verdict before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track - II,
Alappuzha, the Appellate Court declined to interfere. Aggrieved by
the concurrent verdicts of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court,
finding the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner is here with
this revision petition.
2025:KER:79458
2. Though notice had been duly served to the complainant /
1st respondent, he did not choose to appear before this Court or to
contest the matter.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court went wrong in arriving at a
finding that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section
138 of the NI Act. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced
were appreciated in the wrong perspective.
5. On going through the case records, including the
impugned judgments as well as the testimonies of the witnesses
examined as PW1 and DW1 before the Trial Court, and the
documents produced from the part of the petitioner and the 1st
respondent, I could not find any irregularity or impropriety in the
findings of the courts below. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated
the aforesaid evidence and arrived at the finding that the petitioner
committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The
2025:KER:79458
Appellate Court has made a reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence
and upheld the findings of the Trial Court in the above regard.
6. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in
revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999
SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High
Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal
unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High
Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of
justice.
In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao
Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC
is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of
the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be
perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly
unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or
2025:KER:79458
where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may
not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional
jurisdiction.
Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in
Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows:
Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the
High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao
Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate
unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is
non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set
aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following
has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting
aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate
court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is
to preserve the power in the court to do justice in
accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
2025:KER:79458
The revisional power of the court under Sections
397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an
appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is
sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or
untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly
unreasonable or where the decision is based on no
material or where the material facts are wholly ignored
or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in
exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
7. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid decisions, it is not possible for this Court to displace the
concurrent findings on facts of the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court, unless it is shown that it is vitiated by blatant illegalities or
perversities. As far as the present case is concerned, there is
absolutely no such circumstances warranting the interference in
revision. Therefore, I am of the view that the findings of the courts
below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are to be
upheld. However, in the matter of sentence, I am of the view that
the Simple Imprisonment for one month awarded by the courts
2025:KER:79458
below has to be excluded, if the petitioner is ready to pay the
amount ordered as compensation by the courts below. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of the compensation
amount of Rs.16,000/-, an amount of Rs.8,000/- had already been
deposited as per the directions of this Court while admitting this
revision petition. The copy of the receipt with regard to the aforesaid
deposit is placed before me for perusal. If that be so, the liability of
the petitioner to make payment of compensation has to be limited to
the balance amount of Rs.8,000/-, with a direction to the Trial Court
to release the amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant or his legal
representatives.
In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as follows :
(i) The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court, holding the petitioner guilty of the
commission of the offence under Section 138 of the
NI Act, are hereby upheld.
(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by
the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to
2025:KER:79458
imprisonment till the rising of court with a direction to pay
compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant or his
legal representatives under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
(iii) The amount of Rs.8,000/- already deposited
by the petitioner before the Trial Court shall be adjusted
with the amount directed to be paid as compensation,
and the liability of the petitioner is limited to the balance
amount of Rs.8,000/-. In the event of non-payment of the
aforesaid compensation amount, the petitioner will
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of three
months.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial
Court within a period of two months from today for
undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of
court and for making payment of the amount of
Rs.8,000/- forming part of the compensation ordered
herein above.
2025:KER:79458
(v) The Trial Court shall release the amount of
Rs.8,000/- already deposited by the petitioner, and the
amount of Rs.8,000/- now being deposited as per this
order, to the complainant or his legal representatives.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/24.10.2025
