Kerala High Court
Emmanuel Constructions vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:12039
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2025 IN Crl.A NO.69 OF
2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31.07.2023 IN CC NO.365 OF 2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 EMMANUEL CONSTRUCTIONS
OPP PWD REST HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SABU KURIAKOSE,
OLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE.,
PIN - 685583
2 SABU KURIAKOSE
AGED 60 YEARS
OLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE,
THODUPUZH, PIN - 685583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOSEPH KIRAN D. THEKKEKARA
SRI.ARUN JOSE THOMAS
SHRI.DAVIS PIUS
SHRI.SHINTO SABASTIAN
SHRI.JEO GEORGE
SMT.RESHMA R.NAIR
SMT.CHINNU ROSE MARY THOMAS
SHRI.STANLY STEPHEN
SHRI.THANKARAJ P. M.
2026:KER:12039
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 CITY ADVERTISERS
THODUPUZHA EAST P.O, THODUPUZHA KARA, REPRESENTED
BY SOLE PROPRIETOR MANOJ P.M, PARACKAL HOUSE, EAST
KALOOR, PIN - 685608
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12039
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 27.08.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.69 of 2023 passed by the District & Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, in judgment dated 31.07.2023 in C.C No.365 of 2019.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. The case of the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint filed before the Trial Court is that the accused entrusted the complainant to do the interior and exterior works of his restaurant. The complainant completed the work for Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Even after the receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount 2026:KER:12039 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025 4 covered by the cheque.
4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The revision petitioner appeared on summons. He pleaded not guilty to the offence alleged.
5. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 in support of the averments in the complaint. PW1, the complainant, deposed that he was engaged by the accused to execute the interior and exterior works of his restaurant for Rs. 10,00,000/-. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured stating the reason "funds insufficient". The plea of the accused during the trial was that he had not issued such cheque. The complainant has proved the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 139 has been drawn in favour of him. The accused failed to place any material to rebut the statutory presumption drawn in favour of the complainant.
6. I have carefully scanned the pleadings and evidence. I failed to find any misreading of records by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court, after meticulously analyzing the findings confirmed the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.
7. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable, or there is 2026:KER:12039 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025 5 non-consideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide:
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123], Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)]}.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence require no interference. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
2026:KER:12039 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1264 OF 2025 6
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the fine amount within ten months.
Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner is granted ten months time to appear before the Trial Court to undergo the imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay the fine amount.
Sd/-
K. BABU JUDGE SJ