Kerala High Court
C.S.Sreedhanya vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 417 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2016 IN Crl.A NO.149
OF 2012 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.03.2012 IN ST NO.416 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
C.S.SREEDHANYA
PROP. M/S.QUEENS HOSIERIES, T3, 4TH FLOOR,
VIGNESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SRI.R.B.RAJESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031
2 CANARA BANK
KOVALAM BRANCH, KOVALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAMREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL.P.RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.417 of 2017
2
2025:KER:70447
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.417 of 2017
.....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI
Act' for short).
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.416 of
2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-X,
Thiruvananthapuram. She stood trial before that court for
committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. The case of the complainant, Canara Bank, Kovalam
Branch, is that the accused has availed a loan facility from the bank
and thereafter, has defaulted in making repayments. There was a
case filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'DRT' for short), Ernakulam, and at that
time a compromise was entered into between the parties, and the
accused agreed to repay Rs.12 lakhs and issued Exts. P3 and P4
cheques for Rs.5 lakhs and 7 lakhs, respectively. But the cheques
when presented for collection returned and the complainant
2025:KER:70447
approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the
evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted her
under Section 138 of the NI Act. It sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section
138 of the NI Act. The accused was also ordered to pay a
compensation of Rs.12 lakhs to the complainant under Section
357(3) Cr.P.C, with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.App.No.149 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court -II,
Thiruvananthapuram. The said court by judgment dated 21.12.2016
allowed the appeal in part and while confirming the conviction,
modified and reduced the sentence to one of simple imprisonment
till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.12 lakhs, with a
default clause.
6. Heard Sri. Ajas Ahammed Sha, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri. George Alexander, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed
the impugned judgments by contending that both the trial court and
the appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in a
2025:KER:70447
proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt
against the accused. He argued that the property of the revision
petitioner is already attached, and she has no means to pay any
amount unless, the property is sold. He further submitted that the
bank can realise the amount by selling the mortgaged property, and
prayed that the proceedings in the present case may be terminated.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no
grounds to interfere with the same.
9. On an appreciation of the materials on record, it is to be
seen that in order to prove the case of the complainant, its manager
has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 documents have been
marked. PW1 has given evidence in tune with the averments in the
complaint. He has stated that when the accused committed default
in repaying the loan amount, proceedings were initiated against her
before the DRT, and while so, the accused approached the bank and
compromised the matter and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12
lakhs as a full and final settlement. Accordingly, the accused signed
and issued Exts. P3 and P4 cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs and 7 lakhs,
respectively, with dates 30.10.2007 and 06.11.2007. But when the
cheques were presented for encashment, they got dishonoured,
2025:KER:70447
stating that 'funds are insufficient,' and the cheque amounts still
remain unpaid.
10. It is to be seen that there is no serious dispute regarding
the fact that the accused has signed and issued Exts.P3 and P4
cheques to the complainant. Further, Ext.D1 document shows that
the accused has agreed to settle the matter by paying Rs.12 lakhs
within a particular date and that at the time of execution of Ext.D1,
has signed and issued Exts.P3 and P4 cheques to the bank. Ext.D1
also thus corroborates and supports the evidence of PW1 regarding
the transactions and the issuance of the cheques. It is further to be
taken note that there is no case for the accused that she is not liable
to pay the amount due to the bank or that the amount has been
realised by the bank through the DRT proceedings. If so, in the light
of the afore discussions, I find no illegality or error in the
appreciation of evidence by both the trial court and appellate court
and in arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused.
11. Now the question to be considered is regarding the
sentence. As stated earlier, the accused has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
fine of Rs.12 lakhs under Section 138 of the NI Act. Considering the
nature of the transaction, its gravity, the cheque amounts, the fact
2025:KER:70447
that the accused is a lady, and the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am of the view that the sentence thus imposed by the
appellate court on the accused is only just and reasonable and no
interference is required with the same. The default sentence
imposed also cannot be stated as excessive or unjust.
In the result this revision petition is dismissed. The revision
petitioner/accused is granted three months time from today to remit
the fine amount. It is made clear that if the fine amount is realised,
the same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under
Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner/accused shall appear
before the trial court on 24.12.2025 to receive the sentence.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
