[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A.Vijayakumar vs P.Sujatha Kumari on 27 March, 2026
2026:KER:27637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2016 IN Crl.A
NO.37 OF 2015 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.01.2015 IN ST NO.279 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
A.VIJAYAKUMAR
SREE KESAVAM, KALLUPALAM, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA,
VIZHAVOOR ROAD, (PONNAYYAN NADAR ROAD),
MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 P.SUJATHA KUMARI
D/O.B.PADMAVATHY AMMA, "ARAVINDAM",
T.C.7/1507, KATTACHAL ROAD, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.
BY ADV SRI.D.KISHORE
SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA, SR. P. P.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
:2:
2026:KER:27637
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act").
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 279/2007
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed
a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from her and, in discharge of the said liability,
issued a cheque for the said amount in her favour. However, upon
presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "funds
insufficient." Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice to
the accused informing him of the dishonour and demanding payment
of the cheque amount. Despite receipt of the notice, the accused
neither paid the amount nor sent a reply. Hence, the accused is
alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 138
of the N.I. Act.
4. During the trial from the side of the complainant, she was
examined as PW1, and two other witnesses were examined as PW2
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
2026:KER:27637
and PW3. The documents produced from the side of the complainant
were marked as Exts.P1 to P20. From the side of the defence, DW1
to DW5 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D12.
5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court
found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138
of the N.I. Act and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to PW1 under Section
357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with interest at 9%
per annum from 07.12.2006. In default of payment of compensation,
the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred
Crl.A. No. 37/2015 before the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal.
While confirming the finding of conviction, the appellate court
modified the sentence and directed the accused to pay a fine of
Rs.9,00,000/-, with a default clause of simple imprisonment for three
months. It was further ordered that the fine amount, if paid or
realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
2026:KER:27637
Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The substantive
sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court was also
confirmed.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and
perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended
that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to properly
appreciate the evidence and arrived at a finding of guilt without due
application of mind. It was further argued that the complainant failed
to establish the source of the amount allegedly lent to the accused.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that
Ext.P1 cheque was unlawfully obtained by the complainant and
misused for filing the complaint.
9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
there is no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the
courts below. It was argued that the complainant had adduced
cogent oral and documentary evidence to establish the transaction
and execution of Ext.P1 cheque. It was further contended that the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
2026:KER:27637
statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act
operates in favour of the complainant.
10. PW1, in her affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination,
reiterated the averments in the complaint. As per her evidence,
Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the repayment of the amount
borrowed by the accused. She categorically deposed that the accused
brought a duly filled cheque and affixed his signature in her
presence. PW1 also provided satisfactory evidence regarding the
source of funds, stating that she was employed in KSRTC and
received a family pension following the death of her husband, who
was also a KSRTC employee. She further deposed that part of the
amount lent was obtained by availing a loan from a bank.
11. As the execution of Ext.P1 cheque is established, the
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arises in favour of the
complainant. Although the accused contended that the cheque leaf
had been taken from his possession during the complainant's visits to
his house, no credible evidence was adduced to substantiate this
claim. The contention that a signed blank cheque was kept
unsecured is inherently improbable. Accordingly, the defence has
failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 756 OF 2016
2026:KER:27637
12. Likewise, no material has been placed before this Court to
demonstrate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent
findings of conviction and sentence by the courts below suffer from
illegality, impropriety, or perversity. Upon a perusal of the records,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgments under
challenge. The sentence imposed by the appellate court is also found
to be appropriate and does not warrant interference.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. However,
considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is granted four months time
to pay the fine amount before the trial court from the date of this
order. Needless to say, if the revision petitioner had deposited any
amount before the trial court pursuant to the directions, if any, issued
by the appellate court as well as this Court, the said amount will be
treated as part of the fine to be paid by him.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
