The offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is primarily quasi-civil, emphasizing alternatives to incarceration.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TH THURSDAY, THE 19 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2410 OF 2007 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN CC NO.572 OF

2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

JAMEELA ILLATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYOOR,, MUTHUTHALA, PATTAMBI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,, PALAKKAD.

BY ADV SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

1 K.RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM VIHAR, PALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM,, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, P.O.PALAPPURAM.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADV SHRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH OTHER PRESENT:

SRI SANAL P. RAJ, PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.572/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, a case relating to the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act , 1881. She was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate to Simple Imprisonment for three months with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/first respondent. In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one month. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of conviction and the modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala and the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant.

3. The case relates to the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.50,000/-, which the petitioner executed and issued to the first respondent towards repayment of a debt which she incurred with him, and the non-payment of the cheque amount despite the receipt of statutory notice. The Trial Court relied on the oral testimony of PW1, the complainant, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P3 and P4 series, for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act . After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court held that the complainant could successfully establish the execution of the cheque, and all other requirements to bring home the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act . The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the evidence and concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate. On going through the case records and the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the courts below about the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the petitioner, cannot be interfered with in this revisional proceedings. However, the punishment awarded by the Appellate Court is liable to be modified, since the prison term of imprisonment in a case like this shall be the last resort of the court, when the accused is not willing to make payment of the amount due to the complainant. Since the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is, to a great extent, of quasi civil nature, every effort shall be made to avoid incarceration of the offender in prison, if he is ready to pay the cheque amount to the creditor. When viewed in the above perspective, it is highly necessary to limit the sentence awarded by the courts below to imprisonment till the rising of Court coupled with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is under severe financial constraints, and hence a reasonable time may be grante