[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Suvin vs Abdul Manaf P.K on 19 January, 2026
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:4196
1
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 10 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2025 IN Crl.A
NO.71 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.05.2024 IN CC NO.5 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS III, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SUVIN
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL NAZAR, NOTTAN VEEDAN HOUSE,
MOOTHEDAM P.O., EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679331
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 ABDUL MANAF P.K.
S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, PATHAYAKKODAN HOUSE,
PATHAPPIRIYAM P.O., ERNAD TALUK,
MAAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676123
2026:KER:4196
2
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BY ADV
SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:4196
3
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
Criminal.R.P No.10 of 2026
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is to the judgment
dated 15.11.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.71 of 2024 passed by the Sessions
Court, Manjeri, confirming the conviction and the sentence
rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Manjeri, in
judgment dated 21.05.2024 in C.C No.5 of 2023.
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused. He has been
convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881
(for short 'the NI Act') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till
rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay a fine of
Rs.23,64,477/-.
3. The respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint before
the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner/accused
2026:KER:4196
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
executed Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.15,37,200/-. 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 petitioner did not pay the amount covered by the cheque.
4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act. The revision petitioner 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 the accused borrowed
90000 Qatar riyals from the complainant for business purpose. In
discharge of the said liability, he executed Ext.P1 cheque in favour
of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque
for encashment, the same was dishonoured stating the reason
"funds insufficient". The plea of the accused during the trial was
that he had not issued such cheque. The complainant has proved
the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. Therefore, the statutory
2026:KER:4196
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
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 non-
consideration 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 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
2026:KER:4196
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
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)]}.
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
petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to pay
the fine amount within one year.
2026:KER:4196
Crl.R.P NO.10 OF 2026
Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the
revision petitioner is granted one year's time to appear before the
Trial Court to undergo the imprisonment till the rising of the Court
and to pay the fine amount.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
KAS
