Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SUDHEER BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 958 OF 2024 | Crl.A NO.123 OF 2023 | ST NO.157 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.P.BIJU, SMT.SAFNA P.S.
For the Respondents: SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act but modified the sentence, holding that substantive imprisonment was not necessary given the transaction's nature.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Conviction and sentence confirmed by the trial and appellate courts - Concurrent finding of guilt upheld, but the substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside due to the nature of the transaction, allowing the petitioner time to pay the fine. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Jurisdiction - Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited; interference is not warranted unless there is illegality, irregularity, or impropriety identified. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner faced prosecution for bouncing a cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act, resulting in a conviction and a fine ordered by the trial court. This conviction was upheld by the appellate court, prompting this revision.
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 138 is confirmed; however, the sentence itself can be altered since the monetary transaction does not necessitate imprisonment.
Issues: Examination of the appropriateness of the sentence relative to the nature of the underlying offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlights that the circumstances surrounding a monetary transaction may not warrant a substantive custodial sentence, focusing on ensuring fairness while upholding convictions.
Result: The revision petition is allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction upheld for cheque dishonor. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's limitation on revisional interference. (Para 3) |
| 3. court emphasizes limited revisional jurisdiction. (Para 4) |
| 4. sentence modified due to nature of the offense. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“this Hon’ble court may be pleased to call for the records, set aside the judgments in ST No.157/2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna dated 31.03.2022 and confirming the conviction and sentence in Crl.Appeal No.123/2023 of Sessions Court, Manjeri dated 21.08.2024 passed by the trial court and appellate court and acquit the petitioner/accused to secure the ends 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.157/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. 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 six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine 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, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and 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 the conviction imposed under of the NI Act.
5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Only) with a default sentence. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following manner:
1. The conviction imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is set aside, and the revision petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 2nd respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Twelve months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.
4. All coercive steps against the revision petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the ab
