Kerala High Court
Abdul Rasheed @ Choonda Parambil Abdul ... vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.113 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/ RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025 IN CC NO.316 OF 2019 OF
SPECIAL COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL
OF CASES U/S.138 NI ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 ABDUL RASHEED @ CHOONDA PARAMBIL ABDUL RASHEED
AGED 55 YEARS
MUSLIARVEETTIL, S/O.CHOONDUPARAMBIL BEERAVU, THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.EUROTECH BATH AND KITCHEN
LTD., DOOR NO. VII/421-A, CHANGARAMKULAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KOKKUR P.O.,, PIN - 679591
2 M/S.EUROTECH BATHS AND KITCHEN LTD
AGED 55 YEARS
REGISTERED ADDRESS:- DOOR NO. VII/421-A,
CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KOKKUR P.O.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DOOR
NO.VII/421-A, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM, KOKKUR
P.O., PIN - 676591
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 M/S.PUTHUSSERIL HOME, CENTRE PVT. LTD.
AGED 58 YEARS
REGISTERED ADDRESS := T.C. 10/29-1, PUTHUSSERIL
HOUSE, MRA 101, MANNANTHALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, BABURAJ PUTHUSSERIL RAGHAVAN,
S/O.RADHAVAN, PUTHUSERIL, MANNANTHALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695015
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC No. 9653 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025
ORDER
Aggrieved by Annexure-A1 common judgment
passed by the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate of
the First Class for Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Thiruvananthapuram
('Trial Court', in short) in C.C.No.316/2019, convicting
and sentencing the petitioners for allegedly committing
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act', for brevity), the
petitioners filed Crl.A.No.113/2025 before the Court of
Session, Thiruvananthapuram ('Appellate Court', for
short). Along with the appeal, the petitioners also filed
Crl. M.P.No.2485/2025 to suspend the sentence of
imprisonment and fine imposed on them. By Annexure A3
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
order, the Appellate Court suspended the execution of
the sentence till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the
condition that the 1st petitioner executes a bond for
Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties and deposits 20% of
the fine amount. Annexure A3 order is erroneous and
improper and is against the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Harihara Krishnan v. J.
Thomas (2017 (4) KHC 699), Shri Gurudatta Sugars
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao
Deshmukh (2024 (5) KHC 121), Bijay Agarwal v.
M/s.Medilines (2025 (1) KHC 371) and Jamboo
Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd., [(2023) 10 SCC 446].
The Appellate Court has failed to consider the crucial
point that the liability under Section 138 of the Act lies
only on the drawer. The cheques in question were drawn
on the account of the 2nd petitioner company, and not on
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
the personal account of the 1st petitioner. Therefore,
Annexure A3 order may be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of
the order that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to
the 2nd respondent.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
vehemently contends that as the 1st petitioner is only the
Managing Director of the 2nd petitioner company, he
cannot be saddled with the liability to pay 20% of the fine
amount as per the impugned order. Only the 2 nd
petitioner company is liable to pay the fine amount. The
learned Counsel relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to above to fortify his
submissions. He urged that the impugned order may be
set aside.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the 1 st petitioner
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
is the Managing Director of the 2 nd petitioner company,
and had drawn and issued the cheque to the 2 nd
respondent/complainant. By Annexure A1 common
judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
petitioners. Assailing the judgment, the petitioners filed
Annexure A2 appeal and an application to suspend the
sentence. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court
has suspended the sentence conditionally.
5. A reading of Annexure A2 memorandum of
appeal unambiguously shows that the petitioners have
not raised any of the grounds that are now raised in this
criminal miscellaneous case. The petitioners also have no
case that the question of law argued before this Court
was argued before the Appellate Court at the time of
hearing of the application to suspend the sentence. The
Appellate Court, following the statutory stipulation under
Section 148 of the Act, ordered 20% of the fine amount
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
to be deposited as a precondition to suspend the
sentence. Therefore, all the contentions now raised in
this Crl. M.C. are untenable.
6. Nevertheless, on a reading of Annexure A3
order, I find that the Appellate Court has not given any
reason for directing the 1st petitioner to deposit 20% of
the fine amount for suspending the sentence, which is
against the principles laid down by a Division Bench of
this Court in P.Sreenivasan v. Babu Raj (2024 (2) KHC
621), wherein it has been held as follows:
"8. In our view, a reading of Section 148 of the N.I. Act as an
exception to the general principles of suspension of sentence
by an Appellate Court as contained in Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C., and in the backdrop of the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari (supra)
would result in the following interpretation as regards the
nature and manner of exercise of discretion by the Appellate
Court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act:
(a) Under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the Appellate Court has
a discretion to either order the appellant to deposit a portion
of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court or to
waive such deposit. In either event, since it would be
exercising a statutory discretion, the Appellate Court
would be legally obliged to furnish reasons for its
decision so as to unambiguously indicate that its
discretion was exercised keeping in mind the object of
the statutory provision.
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
(b) If the Appellate Court, pursuant to the exercise of its
discretion, finds that the appellant is required to deposit a
portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial
court pending disposal of the appeal, then the amount
directed to be deposited cannot be less than an amount
equivalent to 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by
the trial court.
(c) If the Appellate Court chooses to direct the appellant to
deposit any sum which is more than 20% of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial court, then it would be
obliged to give further reasons for directing the deposit of
such amounts as are in excess of the minimum of 20% of the
fine or compensation awarded by the trial court".
(emphasis given)
6. In light of the emphatic declaration of law in
the aforecited decision and on finding that the Appellate
Court has not stated any reasons in Annexure-A3 order in
ordering the 1st petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine
amount, I am of the definite view that Annexure A3 order
is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
In the above backdrop, I allow the Crl.M.C. by
quashing Annexure A3 order to the extent it directs the
petitioners to deposit 20% of the fine amount and direct
the Appellate Court to reconsider Crl.M.P.No.2485/2025,
in accordance with law, by keeping in mind the law laid
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
down in P.Sreenivasan's case (supra) and untrammelled
by any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rck/dkr
2025:KER:80946
CRL.MC NO. 9653 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.
316 OF 2019 DATED 27.03.2025 PASSED BY
THE SPECIAL COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF THE FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
CRL. APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2025 FILED BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025
IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2485 OF 2025 IN CRL.
APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
