[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Emmanuel Constructions Opp Pwd Rest ... vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2026
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
Crl.R.P.No.1283 of 2025
..1..
2026:KER:2394
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1283 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2025 IN
Crl.A NO.71 OF 2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2023 IN CC
NO.352 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 EMMANUEL CONSTRUCTIONS OPP PWD REST HOUSE
AGED 50 YEARS
MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS
SOLE PROPRIETOR SABU KURIAKOSE, OLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE IDUKKI,DISTRICT,
PIN - 685583
2 SABU KURIAKOSE
AGED 55 YEARS
OLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKKAD
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -
685583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOSEPH KIRAN D. THEKKEKARA
SRI.ARUN JOSE THOMAS
SHRI.DAVIS PIUS
Crl.R.P.No.1283 of 2025
..2..
2026:KER:2394
\
SHRI.SHINTO SABASTIAN
SHRI.JEO GEORGE
SMT.RESHMA R.NAIR
SMT.CHINNU ROSE MARY THOMAS
SHRI.STANLY STEPHEN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 CITY ADVERTISERS
THODUPUZHA EAST P.O, THODUPUZHA KARA,
REPRESENTED BY SOLE PROPRIETOR MANOJ P.M,
PARACKAL HOUSE, EAST KALOOR, PIN - 685608
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV E C BINEESH SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME
UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1283 of 2025
..3..
2026:KER:2394
\
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1283 of 2025
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2025
ORDER
The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the
judgment dated 31.07.2023 in CC. No.352 of 2019 of the
Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha,
which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court,
Thodupuzha, in the judgment dated 27.08.2025 in
Crl.Appeal No.71 of 2023.
2. The revision petitioners are the accused.
Revision Petitioner No.2 is the sole proprietor of Revision
Petitioner No.1 proprietorship concern. He has been
convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He
was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the complainant.
..4..
2026:KER:2394
\
3. The complainant/respondent No.2 filed a
complaint before the Trial Court alleging that accused
No.2/revision petitioner No.2 executed Ext.P1 cheque for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/. The complainant presented the
cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due
to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused.
Even after the receipt of the statutory notice, the revision
petitioners did not pay the amount covered by cheque.
4. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Revision petitioner No.2
appeared on summons. He pleaded not guilty to the
offence alleged.
5. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 in
support of the averments in the complaint. He stated that
revision petitioner No.2/accused No.2 executed Ext.P1
cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment of the
work done by him. The plea of accused No.2 during the
trial was that he had not issued such a cheque. The
..5..
2026:KER:2394
\
complainant has proved the execution of Ext.P1 cheque.
Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 139
has been drawn in favour of him. The accused failed to
place any material to rebut the statutory presumption
drawn in favour of the complainant.
6. I have carefully scanned the pleadings and
evidence. I failed to find any misreading of records by
the trial Court. The Sessions Court, after meticulously
analyzing the findings confirmed the conviction rendered
by the trial Court.
7. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable, or there is nonconsideration of any
relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting
aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate
court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is
..6..
2026:KER:2394
\
to preserve the power in the court to do justice in
accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to
401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal.
Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought
to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law
or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or
where the decision is based on no material or where the
material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their
revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: Sanjaysinh Ramrao
Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC
123], Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001)
9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency
Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018)
16 SCC 299)]}.
..7..
2026:KER:2394
\
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
conviction and sentence require no interference. Hence,
the Revision Petition is dismissed.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners submitted that revision petitioner
No.2 is prepared to deposit the compensation within six
months.
Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, revision petitioner No.2 is
granted six months' time to appear before the trial Court
to undergo the imprisonment till the rising of the Court
and to deposit the compensation.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
kkj
