[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
V.K.Sadanandan vs Wayanad Primary Co-Operative ... on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1525 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2017 IN Crl.A NO.109 OF
2015 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.2349 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, MANANTHAVADY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
V.K.SADANANDAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VENGOLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
MANANTHAVADY, PIN-670645.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 WAYANAD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
BANK LTD. NO:LL.230, PANANMARAM BY ITS SECRETARY
INCHARGE V. RAJENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 46
YEARS, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTARAKUNNU POST, PIN-670731.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KALPETTA, PIN-
673121.
BY ADV
ADV MAYA M N PP
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No.1525 of 2017 2
2026:KER:6653
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN,J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1525 of 2017
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction
and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/accused
under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in
S.T.C.No. 2349 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. He stood trial before that
court for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of
the NI Act.
3. The case of the complainant, which is a banking
institution, is that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-
from it, as per loan account No.TRDM19/09 by agreeing to repay
the loan, by way of monthly installments. But the accused failed
to pay the loan as agreed. Later, on 10.06.2013, the accused
executed and issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 10.06.2013, for
Rs.1,79,628/- to discharge the liability. But when the cheque was
presented for collection, it got dishonoured for the reason that
'funds are insufficient'. The statutory notice issued also did not
2026:KER:6653
evoke any response. Hence, the complainant approached the trial
court by filing the afore complaint.
4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the
accused guilty and convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act.
It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,79,628/- under
Section 138 of the NI Act, with a default clause. The fine amount
was also directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation
under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by
filing Criminal Appeal No. 109/2015 before the Sessions Court,
Kalpetta. By judgment dated 28.09.2017, the said court allowed
the appeal in part and, while upholding the conviction, modified
the sentence to one of simple imprisonment till the rising of the
court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,79,628/-, under Section 138 of the
NI Act, with a default clause.
6. Heard Sri.Santharam P, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel
for the first respondent. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
contended that both the trial court and the appellate court did not
2026:KER:6653
appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived
at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that
the complainant has failed to prove that Ext. P2 cheque has been
issued to discharge the liability incurred in the loan transaction, as
alleged. He submitted that even though, going by the complaint,
the accused had availed a loan as per Loan Account No. TRDM
19/09, Ext. P8 loan application produced by the complainant
would show that the loan account number is not 19/09, but 18/09
-10. He also submitted that, as per Ext. D1 passbook, again there
is a change in the loan account number and it mentions 20/09 -10.
Hence, according to the learned counsel, the complainant has
failed in even discharging the initial burden to prove that the
accused had availed a loan as alleged and that Ext. P2 cheque has
been issued to discharge the said liability. He further, relying on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandradhar
Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., [1967 KHC 624], contended
that, merely because a statement of account is produced by the
complainant, it cannot be presumed that the amount stated
therein has in fact been advanced to the accused. He also
contended that the cheque which was issued by the accused in
the year 2006, when he had availed a loan from the complainant,
has been misused in this case.
2026:KER:6653
8. Per contra, the counsel for the first respondent
supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are
no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that merely
because of the fact that there is a change in the number of the
loan account, the same itself is not enough to rebut the statutory
presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
He further submitted that the version of the accused that he had
availed a loan in the year 2006 has not been proved and Ext. D1
produced by him would clearly show that he has received the
loan amount only in 2010.
9. In the instant case, the evidence on record goes
to show that, in order to prove the case of the complainant, PW1
and PW2 have been examined and Exts. P1 to P9 documents
have been marked. PW1 is the Secretary in charge of the
complainant Bank, and he deposed that the accused had availed a
loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant bank and has failed to
repay it. He also stated that, in order to discharge the said
liability, Ext. P2 cheque was issued by the accused and when it
was presented for collection, it got dishonoured.
10. PW2 is the Branch Manager of the complainant
bank, and he deposed that on 10.06.2013, the accused came to
the complainant's branch at Mananthavady and signed and issued
2026:KER:6653
Ext. P2 cheque. He also stated that Ext. P2 cheque was thus
signed and executed in front of him and given to him.
11. It is seen that the main contention taken by the
accused is that his cheque leaf, which had been obtained by the
bank in 2006 as security for another loan availed by him, has
been misused in this case. It is also his case that he has already
cleared the loan and closed the account. However, it is pertinent
to note that, in support of the aforesaid version, the accused has
not adduced any evidence. He neither stepped into the box nor
produced any documents relating to the loan transaction or
showing repayment of the loan. The only document produced by
the accused to substantiate his contention is Ext. D1 passbook.
But, a perusal of Ext. D1 shows that the claim of the accused that
he had availed a loan from the complainant bank in 2006, is
nothing, but false. The entry in Ext. D1 categorically shows that
the accused had availed a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the
complainant on 05.03.2010 and not in 2006, as contended. There
is no explanation from the side of the accused regarding this
inconsistency. That apart, on a perusal of Ext. P8, it can be seen
that the application is dated 06.02.2010 and that the accused,
along with the sureties have signed in it. Further, Ext. P8 also
contains the photographs of the accused and the guarantors. Thus
2026:KER:6653
Ext.P8 also offers considerable credence and support to the case
of the complainant regarding the transaction. In such
circumstances, merely because of the fact that there is some
mistake in the loan account number in Ext. P8 and Ext. D1, I am of
the view that the same itself is not sufficient to rebut the statutory
presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
12. Be that as it may, I will also take note of the fact
that, even though the case of the accused is that the loan availed
in 2006 has been closed, there is absolutely no explanation
forthcoming as to why he did not get back the cheque leaf, which
he had allegedly given as security for the transaction. Further, the
accused has also not filed any stop memo or lodged any
complaint before any authorities stating that his cheque has been
misused by the complainant. These factors also adds as an
additive to improbabilise the case of the accused. The decision in
Gauhati Bank's case (cited supra), relied upon by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner is not at all applicable to this
case, since in the instant case the accused has not disputed his
signature in Ext. P2; the possession of the cheque by the
complainant, and the statutory presumptions gets attracted in
favour of the complainant.
2026:KER:6653
13. Therefore, considering all the afore facts, I am of
the view that both the trial court and the appellate court have
appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived
at a correct conclusion of guilt against the accused. The sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner/accused also cannot be stated
as excessive or unjust.
Ergo, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition, and
the same is accordingly dismissed. But, considering the
submission made by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, which is not opposed by the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent, the revision petitioner/accused is granted time till
31.03.2026, to pay the fine amount. The revision petitioner shall
appear before the trial court on 31.03.2026 to receive the
sentence.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
mea
