Kerala High Court
Radhakrishna Pillai vs Sreejith G on 21 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2024 IN CMP
NO.2571 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
SASTHAMCOTTA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O BHASKARA PILLAI PALLIYADIYIL HOUSE
MUTHUPILAKKADU SASTHAMCOTTA, PIN - 690521
BY ADVS.
SMT.NAVIA SEBASTIAN
SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SREEJITH G
S/O GOPINATHAN PILLAI KMHSS,KOTTOOR NORTH P.O. AR
NAGAR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54717
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD
SHRI.REUBEN CHARLY
SHRI.CHRISTY THOMAS
SHRI.VYSHNAV S. NAIR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54717
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Petition No. 1359 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 04.07.2024 in CMP No. 2571/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. The revision petitioner is the complainant in the above case and the 1 st respondent is the accused (hereinafter the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent are mentioned as complainant and the accused). The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :
The accused is a person known to the complainant. He borrowed Rupees 25 Lakh from the complainant on 07.04.2023 and in discharge of said liability, issued a cheque dated 20.04.2023 drawn on the account maintained by the accused at CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54717 Canara Bank, Thondayadu Branch. On 12.06.2023. the complainant presented the cheque for collection through Kerala Gramin Bank. Bharanikkav Branch, where he maintains account. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason Fund insufficient and returned to the complainant along with dishonour memo dated 13.06.2023. On 27.06.2023, the complainant issued a lawyer's notice at the address of the school in Malappuram District, where the accused was working. The notice was returned with endorsement 'no such addressee residing at Indianoor P.O'. The complainant informed the accused of the matter, and the accused gave his present address and informed the complainant that the cheque would be honoured if presented again. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque again on 20.07.2023 through Kerala Gramin Bank Bharanikkav Branch, but it was dishonoured again and returned with endorsement 'Instrument outdated stale'. The complainant again sent a Lawyer's notice CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54717 to the accused. Though he received the notice, he did not return the money. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.
2. The learned Magistrate without issuing notice to the 1st respondent, dismissed the complaint stating that the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard
4. This Court perused the impugned order and also the lower court records. The relevant portion of the order, by which the complaint is dismissed under Sec.203 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder :
"4. The reason for dishonour of cheque in this case is instrument out dated/stale, which will not attract offence under Section 138 NI Act. Learned Counsel for the complaint argued that the cheque was presented for encashment on 20.05.2023 and the Bank committed an error in dishonouring the cheque as outdated/stale. According to him, the cheque was presented within the validity period. Since the learned Counsel took such a strong plea, an inquiry was conducted. The Manager of the Kerala Gramin Bank, Bharanikkav Branch was examined and she deposed that the cheque was presented at her branch on 20.05.2023. Since the Bharanikkav Branch has no CTS facility, it CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54717 was handed over to Kottarakkara Branch on that date itself. The manager of the drawee bank, Canara Bank, Thondayadu branch, is also examined and he deposed that the cheque was dishonoured on 13.06.2023 for insufficiency of funds and thereafter it was not seen presented again. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi v. State of Gujarat (2014 (2) KLT 203 (SC) to buttress his contention that the cheque in question was presented within the period of validity. In that case, the date of drawal of cheque was 31.12.2005 and the date of presentation of cheque was 30.06.2006 The Honourable Supreme Court held that the date on which the cheque was drawn ie 31.12.2005 will be excluded and the period of six months will be reckoned from the next day ie 01.01.2006 and the period of six months will expire at the end of the 30th day of June, 2006. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the use of the word 'from" in S.138 (a) requires exclusion of the first day on which the cheque was drawn and inclusion of the last day within which such act needs to be done.
5. In the case at hand, the date of cheque is 20.04.2023. It was dishonored on 21.07 2023. Applying the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, the period of three months should be reckoned in this case from 21.04.2023. The period of three months would expire one day prior to the date in the corresponding month i.e 20.07.2023. The complainant has no case that he presented cheque before the drawee bank, ie, Canara Bank Thondayadu CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54717 Branch on 20.07.2023. The date of dishonour as per the cheque dishonour memo is 21.07.2023, which means that the cheque was presented before the drawee bank after the period of its validity. The offence under Section 138 NI Act will not be attracted, if the cheque was presented after the period of validity. The dishonour of the cheque as an out dated/stale cheque will not attract offence under Section 138 NI Act. For the reasons stated above, the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of NI Act are not made out in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed."
5. The trial court observed that the cheque is dated 20.04.2023. It was dishonoured on 21.07.2023. The trial court observed that, applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment quoted in the order, the period of three months should be reckoned from 21.04.2023. The period of three months would expire one day prior to the date in the corresponding month, that is 20.07.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant has no case that he presented the cheque before the drawee bank, ie, Canara Bank on 20.07.2023. The date of dishonour as per the cheque dishonour CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:54717 memo is 21.07.2023, which means the cheque was presented before the drawee bank after the period of its validity. According to the complainant, the cheque was presented on 12.06.2023 for collection through Kerala Gramin Bank, Bharanikkav branch where he maintains the account. The reason for rejection of the complaint is mainly for the reason that the complainant has no case that he presented the cheque before the drawee bank ie, Canara Bank, Thondayadu branch on 20.07.2023. Admittedly, the cheque was presented at Kerala Gramin Bank on 12.06.2023. I am of the considered opinion that at the stage of taking cognizance, this question need not be decided in detail because it is a matter to be heard by the trial court after taking cognizance. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the matter is to be reconsidered by the learned Magistrate.
Therefore, the impugned order can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider the same. Therefore, this CRL.REV.PET NO. 1359 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:54717 revision is allowed in the following manner :
1) The order dated 04.07.2024 in CMP No. 2571/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta is set aside and CMP No. 2571/2023 is restored.
2) The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta is directed to proceed with CMP No. 2571/2023 in accordance with law.
3) The petitioner will appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta on 11.08.2025.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS