Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
NISSAM ABDUL VAHAB – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 218 OF 2024 | Crl.A NO.62 OF 2022 | ST NO.526 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.TONY THOMAS, SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, SMT.AMRUTHA K.P., SMT.SRADHA MOHAN, SHRI.SAGAR ROSHAN
For the Respondents: SR PP SMT SEETHA
The court confirmed the conviction under the NI Act while adjusting the sentence to balance justice with the nature of the monetary transaction involved.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Conviction and sentence for cheque bounce case - The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment and fine, which was confirmed by the appellate court - The revision challenges the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. (Paras 2, 4)
(B) Jurisdiction and standard of review - The court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is limited to instances of illegality, irregularity, or impropriety, and the concurrent findings of both trial and appellate courts were upheld.|
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under the NI Act for cheque bounce due to failure to settle a money transaction, resulting in a sentence that included imprisonment and a fine.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, while the sentence was modified to reflect an equivalent fine and limited imprisonment.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the authority of the appellate court’s decision regarding the petitioner’s conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that there were no grounds for interference with the conviction, while suggesting that the strict imprisonment necessary could be moderated given the nature of the offense and the context of the transaction.
Result: The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was adjusted to reflect a more lenient approach, allowing time for payment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ni act for cheque bounce. (Para 2) |
| 2. the jurisdiction for review in criminal cases is limited. (Para 3) |
| 3. sentence adjusted due to nature of transaction. (Para 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 218 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2023 IN Crl.A NO.62 OF 2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2022 IN ST NO.526 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, SULTHANBATHERY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
NISSAM ABDUL VAHAB AGED 44 YEARS S/O.ABDUL VAHAB, KALLUMURAYIL HOUSE, PALAKKAMOOLA, KARYAMBADI POST, MEENANGADY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673591 BY ADVS.
SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SMT.AMRUTHA K.P. SMT.SRADHA MOHAN SHRI.SAGAR ROSHAN RESPONDEN T S /RESPONDEN T S/STATE & COMPLAINAN T :
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 M/S. SURABI TRADERS REP. BY ITS PARTNER, NOUFAL V.K, S/O. UMMER, AGED 37 YEARS, MEENANGADI, PURAKKADI VILLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592 SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.218 of 2024 -------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2025
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“ to call for the entire records of the case and allow this revision by setting aside the judgement dated 19-12- 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.62/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Kalpetta which arose from judgement dated 15-10-2022 in S.T.C No.526/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Sulthan Bathery in the interests of justice.”
[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 S.T. No.526/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Sulthan Bathery. 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 undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,54,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Four Thousand Only). In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two 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 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 t
