[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shamon Haneefa vs Amal B on 27 January, 2026
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:6303
Crl.R.P.No.108 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 108 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2025 IN Crl.A
NO.20 OF 2024 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT, THODUPUZHA / I ADDITIONAL MACT/ADDL.RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY -II, THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2024 IN ST NO.52 OF
2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
II,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SHAMON HANEEFA
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O HANEEFA, ELAVUMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
MADAKKATHANAM KARA, VAZHAKULAM P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHYAMDEEP S.SHENOY
SRI.K.S.ANEESH
SMT.C.S.GEETHU
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
2026:KER:6303
Crl.R.P.No.108 of 2026 2
1 AMAL B.
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O BYJU P.K., PARATHAZHATHU HOUSE, KARIKODE
KARA, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685585
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6303
Crl.R.P.No.108 of 2026 3
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.108 of 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the
judgment dated 25.10.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.20 of 2024
passed by the Additional Sessions Court - III, Thodupuzha,
confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, THodupuzha, in
judgment dated 16.02.2024 in S.T.No.52 of 2022.
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
undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. He was also
directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,29,096/-.
3. The complainant/respondent No.1 filed a complaint
before the Trial Court alleging that the accused/revision
petitioner 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
2026:KER:6303
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 had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the
complainant and in discharge of the said liability, he
executed Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The
plea of the accused during the trial was that he had
borrowed a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant
on an interest basis and had issued a blank cheque as
security. The accused further pleaded that he had
discharged the entire liability along with interest, which was
witnessed by one Mr. Nasar, who was examined as DW1.
Apart from the testimony of DW1, the accused has not
adduced any other evidence to substantiate his claim that
the entire amount borrowed from the complainant was
2026:KER:6303
Crl.R.P.No.108 of 2026 5
repaid. The 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 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
2026:KER:6303
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)]}.
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 six months.
2026:KER:6303
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
six month'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
VPK
