H.A.Sudheer vs M.Kannan
2026 Latest Caselaw 627 Ker

Kerala High Court

H.A.Sudheer vs M.Kannan on 21 January, 2026

                                                           2026:KER:5168
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

                                    1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

      WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947

                       CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2012 IN Crl.A NO.25 OF 2011

              OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-1, PALAKKAD

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2010 IN CC NO.1145 OF 2009

          OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             H.A.SUDHEER,
             AGED 31 YEARS,
             16/213, NEHRU COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD.


             BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

     1       M.KANNAN
             S/O MANICKAN, "ARAPATH HOUSE", MANGALA VINAYAKA STREET,
             PALLIPURAM, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD-679 307.

     2       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.

             ADV. NEEMA T V, SR. GP.


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                2026:KER:5168
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

                                      2




                                   ORDER

This revision petition is preferred impugning the

judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad, in

Criminal Appeal No.25/2011 for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the

Act'). The above appeal was preferred, challenging the judgment

in C.C.No. 1145/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate-III, Palakkad, whereby the accused was found guilty.

2. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner

to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a

compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months.

3. The appellate court, as per the impugned

judgment, modified and reduced the sentence to one till rising of

the court and to pay compensation of Rs.2,80,000/-, keeping the

default sentence intact.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts

below and got rejected concurrently. The contentions raised 2026:KER:5168 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

before me are also urging for re-appreciation of evidence, which

is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any

kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence.

5. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot

act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court

under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the

power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana

Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999

SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

"5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in 2026:KER:5168 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."

6. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray

Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123 = (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)

19], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

"14. ... 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 CrPC 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."

7. This Court reiterated the above legal principle in

Saji Charivukala Puthenveedu v. State of Kerala [2023(7)

KHC 381], Kunjumon P.K. v. Mathew P.K [2022 KHC 7318] 2026:KER:5168 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

and Shabeer M. v. Anitha Bajee & Another [2022(6) KHC

704].

8. The courts below had concurrently found that

the complainant had successfully discharged initial burden of

proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the

revision petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under

Section 118(a) and 139 of the Act, which stood in favour of the

complainant. So also, it is found that the debt due to the

complainant was a legally enforceable debt and the cheque was

duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt.

9. The revision petitioner failed to point out any

kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. I do not find

any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or

perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above

findings had been arrived. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-

appreciate the entire evidence.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submit that challenge under this revision is confined to sentence

only and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is

disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. He 2026:KER:5168 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

further submits that the revision petitioner is willing to pay the

compensation as ordered by the court below; but he is unable to

raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds. But he is

ready to pay the compensation within three months.

11. The Apex Court in Raj Reddy Kallem v. State

of Haryana [2024(3) KHC 485] and Damodar S. Prabhu v.

Sayed Babalal H. [2010(2) KHC 428] held that, it is the

compensatory aspect of remedy which should be given priority

over the punitive aspect with regard to the offence of dishonour

of cheques. This Court reiterated the aforementioned legal

principles in Aaremsky Sports & Fitness v. P.A. Sadanandam

[2024 KHC 111], Sasikumar v. Ushadevi [2023(6) KHC

444], Jayaprakash M.N. v. S.R. Madhu & Another [2013

KHC 3707] and Vijayakumar v. M.T. Vijayan & Another

[2010(4) KHC 582].

12. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the

offence; in the light of the decisions quoted above and submission

made at the Bar expressing willingness to pay the compensation

within three months; I am inclined to grant three months time to

pay the compensation.

2026:KER:5168 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2110 OF 2012

In the result,

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The substantive sentence is maintained.

(iii) The compensation awarded and the default sentence are maintained. Needless to say, if any part of the compensation is deposited as per the orders of this Court or that of the appellate court, such amount shall be taken into consideration by the trial court.

(iv) The trial court shall execute the order in the modified form.

(v) The revision petitioner/accused shall surrender before the trial court on or before 20.04.2026 to receive the sentence.

Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE msp