[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jayanthan K. K vs Alex Jacob on 18 February, 2026
1
Crl. R.P. No. 229/2020
2026:KER:14344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 229 OF 2020
JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2019 IN Crl.A NO.111 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM
JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2017 IN S.T NO.168 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS III, KANJIRAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAYANTHAN K. K., AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O. KRISHNAN, KALATHARA HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P. O., ERNAKULAM
DISTIRCT, PIN - 682 508.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.N.SURESH
SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU
SHRI.MONSY K.V
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 ALEX JACOB, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O. JACOB, MUNDAPLAKKAL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADV SHRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
R1 BY SRI. BOBY M.M.,
R2 BY SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.02.2026, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl. R.P. No. 229/2020
2026:KER:14344
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 229 of 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in a case under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I Act for short).
2. The trial court convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner
to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,70,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months. The appellate court, as per
judgment dated 20.11.2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 111 of 2017, confirmed
the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
3. Heard Sri. T.N. Suresh, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, Sri. Boby M.M., the learned counsel representing the learned
counsel for the first respondent and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that
Exhibit P1 cheque is not supported by valid consideration and that the
evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to discharge the initial burden and
2026:KER:14344
therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the statutory
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act. It is also
argued that a proper appreciation of the evidence of DW1 and Exhibits
D1 and D2 would show that there was no transaction between the
accused and the complainant and the finding recorded by the trial court
and the appellate court regarding the issuance of the cheque and its
consideration are perverse and therefore, requires interference by this
Court in revision.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent argued
that the evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction and issuance of the
cheque by the accused towards payment of the balance amount due
from the accused and his brother is sufficient to discharge the initial
burden and that the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the
entire evidence in a proper manner and there is no jurisdictional error or
illegality warranting interference in revision.
6. The averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint and the
evidence of PW1 shows that he approached the accused and his brother
to get employment in New Zealand. It is specifically alleged that the
2026:KER:14344
accused and his brother, Anil Kumar, were conducting a man power
recruitment agency under the name and style 'Reeta Management
Services' and for arranging a job in New Zealand, they collected Rs.6.5
Lakhs as advance from the complainant promising to arrange the visa
within 6 months. When the accused and his brother failed to arrange the
visa, the complainant demanded back the money and then they repaid
Rs.5,00,000/- and towards the balance amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs, the
accused executed and issued Exhibit P1 cheque.
7. It is specifically stated in the chief affidavit of PW1 that the
accused executed and issued Exhibit P1 cheque on 25.09.2015, while
they were in the house of the accused. In view of the said evidence of
PW1 and the averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint
regarding the transaction, execution and issuance of Exhibit P1 cheque, I
find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that when the
brother of the accused was examined as DW1, initially he stated that
when the complainant demanded security for the balance amount, his
brother who is the accused herein handed over a signed blank cheque as
2026:KER:14344
security to the complainant and thereafter, he immediately corrected
that he entrusted the cheque to the complainant and the appellate court
has also taken note of the said evidence of DW1 in chief examination
while recording a finding in favour of the complainant.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that it
was DW1, the brother of the accused who conducted the recruitment
agency, and the accused has no connection with the said agency and
even if the complainant has paid any amount to DW1, the accused has
no liability to return the said amount. But, the specific case of the
complainant is that the recruitment agency was conducted by the
accused and his brother and they together received Rs.6.5 Lakhs as
advance for arranging a visa and subsequently, when they failed to
arrange the visa, they repaid Rs.5,00,000/- and issued Exhibit P1
cheque for Rs. 1.5 Lakhs towards the balance amount. In view of the
definition of the term 'consideration' in Section 2(d) of the Indian
Contract Act and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, I find that the arguments of the
2026:KER:14344
learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard is not legally
sustainable.
9. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked
only when the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous or there
is non compliance of the provisions of law or finding recorded by the trial
court is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored. In State
of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2
SCC 452], it was held that revisional power is a type of supervisory
jurisdiction meant to rectify injustices and it is not the same as the
appellate jurisdiction.
10. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or
infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
