Kerala High Court
Benoy vs Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 31 October, 2025
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1465 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2013 IN Crl.A NO.733
OF 2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR AND JUDGMENT DATED
23.10.2010 IN CC NO.806 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS-II,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BENOY,S/O.SUDHAKARAN,ATHIYARATH HOUSE,
KURUVILASSERY P.O,VALIYAPARAMBU,MALA,THRISSUR
BY ADV SHRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
MISSION QUARTERS,THRISSUR P.O,
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER PREMALATHA 680001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031
BY ADV SRI.C.D.DILEEP FOR R1
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.10.2025, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 2
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Thrissur and the Sessions Court, Thrissur holding the
petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, are under challenge in this revision.
2. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution in C.C
No.806/2008 before the learned Magistrate in connection with the
dishonour of a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- which he is said to have
issued to the complainant/first respondent towards the discharge of a
debt of the said amount. Before the Trial Court, the authorised officer
of the first respondent tendered evidence as PW1. Ten documents
were marked as exhibits for the complainant/first respondent. From
the part of the petitioner/accused, one document was marked as
Ext.D1. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned
magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the complainant/first
respondent successfully established the commission of the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I Act by the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months
with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 3
complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Though the matter was
taken up in appeal before the Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A
No.733/2010, the Appellate Court declined to interfere with the
finding of conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138
of the N.I Act by the Trial Court. However, the substantive sentence
of simple imprisonment for three months was reduced to
imprisonment till rising of court while retaining the direction to pay
compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. It is the aforesaid
judgment dated 20.02.2013, which is under challenge in this revision.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the
learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant.
4. It is seen from the records that the first
respondent/complainant had successfully established the allegations
levelled against the petitioner, through the evidence adduced before
the Trial Court. The aforesaid evidence has been subjected to
re-appraisal by the Appellate Court before arriving at the conclusion
that the petitioner/accused committed the offence under Section 138
of the N.I Act. The only challenge raised by the petitioner/appellant
in the courts below, as well as in this revision, is that an amount of
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 4
Rs.4,00,000/- which he paid to the complainant as revealed by Ext.D1
receipt, would show that the petitioner had paid double the cheque
amount, and hence he cannot be held liable for the commission of the
offence as alleged in the complaint. There is absolutely no basis for
the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. This is because of the
reason that Ext.D1 receipt is of the date 31.07.2007, which is about
nine months after the commission of the offence alleged in this case.
The case records would reveal that Ext.P4 notice which the
complainant/first respondent issued on 24.10.2006 was accepted by
the petitioner on 06.11.2006 as revealed from Ext.P6 acknowledgment
card. That being so, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act
would come into play after the elapse of the period of 15 days from
06.11.2006, within which the petitioner was having the option to
avoid criminal prosecution by making payment of the cheque amount.
Therefore, the subsequent payment of Rs.4,00,000/- said to have
been made vide Ext.D1 receipt would not obliterate the offence
committed by the petitioner. Had the petitioner got a case that the
entire amount outstanding in the transaction with the first respondent
was already paid by him, he could have taken the necessary steps for
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 5
compounding the offence. The mere contention that the petitioner
had paid twice the cheque amount on 31.07.2007 as revealed by
Ext.D1 is not a reason to hold that he is not guilty of the offence
found to have been committed, concurrently by the courts below. As
rightly observed by the courts below, Ext.P10 award passed by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies in connection with the loan liability
of the petitioner would go to show that the complainant/first
respondent was permitted to realise an amount of Rs.10,37,927/- on
28.09.2001. Ext.P1 cheque is said to have been issued by the
petitioner towards part payment of the amount due to the first
respondent in connection with the aforesaid loan transaction. That
being so, Ext.D1 receipt pertaining to the payment of an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- by the petitioner on 31.07.2007 is of no consequence as
far as the offence related to the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque is
concerned. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has rightly
rejected the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard.
There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings on fact by the courts below, about the offence committed by
the petitioner. As regards the punishment awarded, it is seen that the
2025:KER:81488
Crl.R.P No.1465/2014 6
Appellate Court has rightly reduced the substantive sentence of
imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of Court, while retaining
as such the direction to pay compensation Rs.2,00,000/-. The default
clause of simple imprisonment for three months prescribed for
non-payment of the compensation amount, is also perfectly in order.
Needless to say, the revision filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. The Registry
shall forward a copy of this order along with the case records to the
Trial Court with the direction to proceed with the enforcement of the
sentence awarded by the Appellate Court.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
