Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
BIJU S/O AYYAPPAN, PADINJAREKKUDY HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. – Appellant
Versus
N.NANDAKUMAR VELLOORKUNNATHU WARRIAM, KADATHY EAST, MARKET P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1574 OF 2017 | Crl.A NO.73 OF 2016 | ST NO.40 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas
For the Respondents: Sri.T.P.PRADEEP, Sri.S.SREEDEV, Sri.P.K.SATHEE S KUMAR, SMT. MAYA.M.N
Statutory presumptions favor the complainant in dishonored cheque cases, requiring substantial rebuttal from the accused.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case arose after a cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to a trial court conviction followed by an unsuccessful appeal. Issues included the validity of the statutory notice and evidence presented. The court reinforced the principle that statutory presumptions favor the complainant absent credible rebuttal explanations. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to overturn the lower findings, affirming the conviction and sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under negotiable instruments act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the appeal process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding evidence and notice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and legal presumptions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final judgment dismissing the revision petition. (Para 13) |
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1574 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2025.
O R D E R Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short).
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.40 of
2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. He stood trial before that Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 17.09.2014 drawn on the Dena Bank, Muvattupuzha Branch, for an amount of Rs.65,000/- in favour of the complainant, to discharge the debt due to him. But, when the cheque was presented for collection, it got dishonoured for the reason that funds are insufficient. The statutory notice issued to the accused also did not evoke any response and hence the complainant approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.
4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.68,000/-, with a default clause. From the fine amount realised, an amount of Rs.67,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section
357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. The said court by judgment dated
28.09.2017 dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.S.Sreedev, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that the version of the complainant is not at all believable and the complainant has not even stated the details of the transaction in the complaint. He also argued that the statutory notice issued to the accused has not been received by him and there is incongruity in the evidence of PW1 regarding the execution of the cheque. He, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham , 2013 (4) KHC 853 , contended that since the complainant is neither aware of the date when the amount was advanced to the accused nor is sure as to who wrote the cheque, the complaint has to fail.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. He argued that the signature in the cheque and the possession of the cheque by the complainant, is admitted by the accused and he has not adduced any evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions. He further submitted that there is no duty cast upon the complainant to prove the original transaction and it is only in cases where the accused rebuts the statutory presumptions, the onus will fall upon the complainant to prove the original transaction. As regards the non receipt of statutory notice, he submitted that Ext.P5 notice has been sent only in the correct address of the accused and the accused has received the summons issued from the trial court in the very same ad
