Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Jobin Sebastian, J
Devaraj M.K. – Appellant
Versus
Baby Memorial Hospital – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1298 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Santharam.P, Rekha Aravind
For the Respondents: Devaprasanth.P.J., Smini Jose
In a revision against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, the High Court will not reappreciate evidence unless the lower courts' findings are perverse, illegal, or improper. Once execution is established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the same.
Headnote:The proceedings concern a revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was convicted for dishonour of a cheque issued to a hospital for medical expenses, a finding which was upheld by the appellate court. The court determined that the complainant proved the underlying transaction and the execution of the cheque, thereby invoking the statutory presumption of liability under S. 139 of the Act. Issues raised included the alleged misuse of a blank security cheque and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the discharge of the debt. The court held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, as no evidence was presented to support the defence of it being a security cheque, which the court found inherently improbable in the context of medical admissions. The revision petition is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence are confirmed, with an extension of time granted for the payment of the fine.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background leading to the current revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding cheque execution and evidentiary sufficiency. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. scope of revisional interference and the effect of statutory presumptions under the n.i. act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the “N.I. Act”).
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.
57/2016 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act Cases)-II, Kozhikode. The complainant is Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, represented by its Finance Manager.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused had sought treatment at the complainant hospital and, in connection with such treatment, underwent two minor surgeries. Towards discharge of the medical expenses, the accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.92,438/- in favour of the complainant, drawn on his account maintained with Canara Bank, West Hill Branch, Kozhikode. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection through its banker, the cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused informing him of the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the cheque amount. On receipt of the notice, the accused sent a reply notice raising certain false and frivolous contentions, but failed to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. During trial, the Finance Manager of the complainant hospital was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the defence, the accused himself was examined as DW1. However, no documentary evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted him. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The trial court further ordered that, if realised, the fine amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section
357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 301/2016 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge, upon hearing the appeal, confirmed both the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.
7. Heard Smt.Angel Cherpanath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, as well as Smt.Smini Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court failed in properly appreciating the evidence and arrived at a finding of guilt without due application of mind. According to the learned counsel, both the courts below went wrong by undermining the fact that the entire amount due to the hospital in connection with the treatment expense of the accused was duly paid by him. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the present complaint was instituted by misusing a blank signed cheque leaf allegedly obtained from the accused as security at the time of his admission in the hospital. The learned counsel further submitted that the execution of Ext. P4 cheque has not been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, no presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act could legally be drawn in favour of the complainant.
9. Per contra, the
