[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anish K. Thomas vs Sajan P.Y on 8 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:1027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025 IN CRRP NO.14
OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM / IV ADDL.M.A.C.T./ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.12 OF 2020 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -IV, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANISH K. THOMAS,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKKARA, PUTHAN
BANGALAVIL, EDAMULAKIL VILLAGE, OZHUGUPARAKKAL P.O.,
AYUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691533
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SHRI.HARISANKAR R
SHRI.V.M.VISHNU MOHAN
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 SAJAN P.Y,
PROPRIETOR, M/S ST. JOHN CASHEW COMPANY, CHEPPARA,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691520
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:1027
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.LIJU. M.P
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:1027
ORDER
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2026
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.Nos.18/2019,
465/2019 and 12/2020 on the file of the Court of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kollam ('Trial Court', in
short), which have been filed by the 1 st respondent alleging
that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
('Act', in short). All the complaints have been consolidated
and are being jointly tried.
2. The petitioner states that, the 1st respondent
and two witnesses were examined to prove the case. After
that the case was posted for recording the statement of
the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Subsequently,
the case was adjourned for defence evidence. Although the
petitioner filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
along with the witness list, to adduce the defence evidence
and the same being allowed, as there was no sitting in the
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 4
2026:KER:1027
Trial Court, the case was adjourned from time to time. In
the meantime, the petitioner's son met with a serious
accident and was hospitalised. Consequently, the
petitioner's counsel filed an application to adjourn the
defence evidence, which was initially allowed. Later the
Trial Court recorded that the petitioner was not ready to
adduce the defence evidence and closed the same.
Accordingly the petitioner filed an application to re-open
the evidence and let in the defence evidence. However, due
to inadvertence on the part of his counsel, the application
was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequently, the petitioner
filed a fresh application for an identical relief, which the
Trial Court dismissed by Annexure A1 order. Aggrieved by
Annexure A1 order, the petitioner preferred a Revision
Petition before the Court of Sessions, Kollam, which is
also dismissed by Annexure A5 order. Annexures A1 and A5
orders are irregular, improper and illegal. Hence, the
Crl.M.C.
2026:KER:1027
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there is no legal enforceable debt payable by
the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is
relying on a fabricated document to substantiate the
complaints. Although the petitioner confronted the 1st
respondent with the said document, he has stated that it
has been signed by the petitioner. In the above
circumstances, the petitioner intends to let in defence
evidence to shift the statutory presumption under Section
139 of the Act. However, due to the circumstances beyond
the petitioner's control, he could not let in defence
evidence on the date the case was posted. It is without
comprehending any of the above aspects that the Trial
Court as well as the Revisional Court have passed the
impugned orders. Therefore, the petitioner may be
permitted to let in defence evidence which will ensure a
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 6
2026:KER:1027
fair trial. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent
vehemently opposed the Crl.M.C. He submits that the
petitioner's sole intention is to protract the determination
of the complaints. The complaints were filed as early as in
2019-2020. The petitioner's intention is to get the disputed
document examined by a handwriting expert, which would
further procrastinate the determination of the complaints.
The petitioner has not denied the execution of the cheques.
So as long as he admitted the execution of the cheques, all
the other matters are irrelevant. Hence, the Crl.M.C may
be dismissed.
6. On going through the materials on record, it
is seen that the petitioner had filed an application to let in
defence evidence along with a list of witnesses. The said
application was allowed and the Trial Court permitted the
petitioner to adduce defence evidence. It is the petitioner's
case that he could not let in defence evidence since his son
met with a serious accident and was hospitalised for a
CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025 7
2026:KER:1027
period of two months. Subsequently, the Trial Court
declined the petitioner to adduce defence evidence on the
ground that he did not avail the said opportunity at the first
instance. This according to me is hyper-technical and
pedantic. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the
petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to let in
defence evidence, especially since the entire onus of proof
rests on his shoulder to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of the Act. Whether the petitioner desires to
send the disputed document to the handwriting expert is to
independently decided by the Trial Court, if the petitioner
files such an application. Therefore, I am of the definite
view that Annexures A1 and A5 orders are to be set aside
and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to let in
defence evidence, which would complete justice and
ensure that a fair trial is to be conducted. Thus, I am
satisfied that the inherent power of this Court is to be
exercised and the impugned orders have to be set aside..
2026:KER:1027
In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed in the following
manner;
(i) Annexures A1 and A5 orders are set aside.
(ii) C.M.P.No.33/2025 is allowed by
permitting the petitioner to let in defence evidence.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
anything on the merits of the petitioner's right to
send the disputed document to a handwriting expert.
If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed
to consider the same, after affording the 1st
respondent an opportunity to file his objections and
then decide the application on its merits.
(iii) Taking into consideration of the fact
that complaints are of the years 2019 and 2020, the
Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the
same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, on or before 10.04.2026.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
NAB
2026:KER:1027
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9316 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2025
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
26.04.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 348 BNSS
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
28.10.2024 FILED UNDER SECTION 353 BNSS
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 14/2025,
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE V, KOLLAM
