Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SAJAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 268 OF 2025 | Crl.A NO.119 OF 2024 | CC NO.486 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.SARIN
For the Respondents: SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SMT. SEETHA
The court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction is limited, respecting concurrent findings of fact when lower courts have correctly assessed evidence under Section 138 NI Act.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 357(1) - Conviction for dishonor of cheque - The trial court found the petitioner guilty and imposed a fine - Appellate court confirmed the conviction after re-appreciating evidence - Revision petition dismissed as there was no illegality in lower court's orders. (Paras 2 and 4)
(B) Criminal Revision - Limitations of jurisdiction - Revisional powers do not permit interference with verdicts unless illegality or irregularity is found. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced prosecution under Section 138 for dishonoring a cheque, resulted in a concurrent conviction from both trial and appellate courts - The appellate court upheld the sentence including a fine with default imprisonment.
Issues: The primary issue was whether there were any irregularities or illegalities in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the narrow scope for interference in concurrent findings, stating that if the courts below have correctly assessed evidence and concluded guilt, the High Court will defer to those findings.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 268 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2025 IN Crl.A NO.119 OF 2024 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/IST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2024 IN CC NO.486 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SAJAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O BELZAZER, KUDIYIRIPPU, VLANGAMURI, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 P.S. SUMUKHI KUMARI AGED 53 YEARS D/O PRABHA BHAI, GREEN VILLA, MOTTAMOODU, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020 BY ADV.
SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN SR PP, SMT. SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.268 of 2025 -------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“to set aside the Judgment dated 30.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.119/2024 in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge Neyyattinkara and judgement dated 29.04.2024 in CC 486/2017 in the Court of Judicial First-Class Magistrate-VII Court, Neyyattinkara and acquit the Revision Petitioner by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.”[SIC]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.486/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Neyyattinkara. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only). There was a direction to the petitioner to pay the fine amount, if any realized, to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed under of the NI Act.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgments. Ten months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence. All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept i
