[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M.T.Khalid vs Ussain P.P on 4 February, 2026
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 97 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 IN CRL.A NO.426 OF
2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III,KOZHIKODE
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2018 IN CC NO.805 OF
2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M.T.KHALID,
BY ADVS. AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.M.T.ABU, VADAKKEVAYAL,
SAINABA ROAD,
KANNADIKKAL, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673009
SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM
SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 USSAIN P.P
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.ALI.K, SLOE PROPRIETOR,
CITY TOWER HOLLOW BRICKS,
PARAMBIL KADVU, KOZHIKODE,
RESIDING AT THAMIR MANZIL,
MADATHUMKAND, KIZHAKKUMMURI POST,
KIRALOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PN-673611
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031
BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
SRI.T.M.KHALID
SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
-:2:-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSEDED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 98 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 IN CRL.A NO.427 OF
2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III, KOZHIKODE
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2018 IN CC NO.806 OF
2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M. T. KHALID
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. M. T. ABU,
VADAKKEVAYAL, SAINABA ROAD,
KANNADIKKAL, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 009.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM
SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 USSAIN P. P.
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. ALI K., SOLE PROPRIETOR,
CITY TOWER HOLLOW BRICKS,
PARAMBIL KADAVU, KOZHIKODE,
RESIDING AT THAMIR MANZIL,
MADATHUMKAND,
KIZHAKKUMMURI POST, KIRALOOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 611.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
-:4:-
BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
SRI.T.M.KHALID
SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
-:5:-
ORDER
The common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions
Court-III, Kozhikode, in Crl.A.Nos.426 & 427/2018, upholding the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Kozhikode, for the commission of offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(in short, 'NI Act') upon the
petitioner, are under challenge in these revision petitions.
Crl.R.P.No.97/2020 relates to the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.25,000/-,
which the petitioner is said to have issued to the complainant/first
respondent. Crl.R.P.No.98/2020 is in connection with the dishonour of a
cheque for Rs.49,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have issued to the
complainant/first respondent. In the above cases, which were numbered
as C.C.Nos.805 & 806/2017, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and
pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.49,000/-, respectively. Default clauses
for simple imprisonment for one month each were also provided for
non-payment of the fine. Though the petitioner challenged the verdicts
in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kozhikode, who
considered the appeals, concurred with the findings of the learned
Magistrate and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here
before this Court with these revision petitions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. The Trial Court relied on the oral testimony of PW1 and the
documents marked as Exts P1 to P11 for arriving at the finding that the
petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The
above said evidence was subjected to detailed scrutiny in appeal by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, it was observed by the
Appellate Court that there was absolutely no reason to differ from the
findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate on an evaluation of the
aforesaid evidence. On going through the evidence on record as well as
the reasoning in the impugned judgments of the courts below, I am of
the view that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be invoked to displace the
above findings.
4. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar [2025(6) KHC 250
SC] the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the limitations in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, held as follows:
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
"27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the
High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent
factual findings [See: Bir Singh (supra)]. This Court is of the view that it
is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the
evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southem Sales & Services
and Others v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, it is a
well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not
interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction,
in the absence of a jurisdictional error.
28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of
perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in
revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the Sessions Court."
Thus the law is well settled that High Courts should be loath in
interfering with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and
Appellate Court, in the absence of perversity looming large from the
evidence on record.
5. In the light of the discussions aforesaid, it is hereby held
that the findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below are not
liable to be interfered with in these revision petitions. However, as
regards the sentence awarded, it is highly necessary to give an
opportunity to the petitioner to avoid prison term, if he is ready to
make payment of the cheque amount to the complainant/first
respondent.
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a
reasonable period of time may be given to the petitioner to make
payment of the fine imposed by the courts below, since the
petitioner is under severe financial constraints. Having regard to the
above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it
appropriate to grant a period of six months time for the petitioner to
remit the fine amount imposed by the courts below.
In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed in part as
follows:
(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the
petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 138
of the NI Act, are hereby confirmed.
(ii)The sentence awarded by the courts below stand modified
and altered by excluding the simple imprisonment for one
month each awarded in these cases.
(iii)It is made clear that the fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty
five thousand only) imposed in C.C.No.805/2017 and the
fine of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only)
imposed in C.C.No.806/2017, are upheld, subject to the
modification that the petitioner is having the option to remit
the above fine amount within a period of six months from
today.
2026:KER:9527
Crl.R.P.Nos.97 & 98/2020
(iv)In default of payment of fine amount within the aforesaid
period of six months as directed in this order, the default
term of simple imprisonment for one month each provided in
the sentence awarded by the courts below will have to be
undergone by the petitioner.
(v)The directions of the courts below to pay the fine amount to
the complainant/first respondent under Section 357(1)(b) of
the Cr.PC. are retained as such.
The Registry shall transmit the case records to the Trial Court
along with a copy of this order for enforcement of the sentence awarded
upon the petitioner.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/04.02.26
