Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J
RAJEEV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 753 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM, SMT.MAYA M N -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The issuance of a cheque creates a presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is rebuttable by the accused.
Headnote:In this case concerning Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was determined that the accused borrowed ₹2,00,000 from the complainant, issuing a cheque that was dishonoured. The court found no basis in the accused's claims of the cheque being misused. Key findings supported by Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act affirmed that the complainant proved the debt. Resultantly, the court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused borrowed money proved by dishonoured cheque. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. court supports presumptions in favour of complainant. (Para 2 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. accused challenges liability and relationships in transactions. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. issuance of cheque brings rebuttable presumption of debt. (Para 12) |
| 5. final decision confirms conviction and modifies sentence. (Para 17) |
2026:KER:6097 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 753 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2019 IN Crl.A NO.94 OF
2017 OF SESSIONS COURT KOLLAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.05.2017 IN CC NO.1078 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOTTARAKKARA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJEEV, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.GOPI, RESIDING AT GOPI SADANAM, NEELESWARAM.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM., PIN - 691505 BY ADV SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SURENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS ELACHIKUZHY, KIZHAKKATHIL, NEELESHAWARAM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM., PIN - 691505 BY ADV SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MAYA M N -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.1.2026, THE COURT ON 23.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd January, 2025
O R D E R
Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1078/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kottarakkara and the appellant in Crl.A.No.94/2017 of Sessions Court, Kollam. He calls into question the judgment of conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I Act).
2. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the accused as arraigned before the trial court.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of ₹2,00,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to him. Upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque for encashment, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. In spite of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
4. The accused faced trial and denied his liability to pay any amount to the complainant and denied the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant in discharge of any debt or liability.
5. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 N.I Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of ₹2,30,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A.No.94/2017 before the Sessions Court, the conviction under N.I Act was confirmed but the sentence was modified; the compensation payable to PW1 was reduced to ₹2 lakhs without interdicting the substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision contending that the trial court and the appellate court have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the courts failed to appreciate the fact that Ext.P1 cheque was a blank cheque handed over by the accused to DW1 Omanakumari; through whom he had borrowed a sum of ₹20,000/- from the complainant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P6.
8. Complainant who was examined as PW1 has te
