Kerala High Court
K.Govindankutty vs Krishnankutty Nair on 14 February, 2025
2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 232 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2019 IN Crl.A NO.206
OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV,
THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2017 IN CC
NO.8 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
II,CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K.GOVINDANKUTTY,
AGED 61 YEARS,
KADAVANNOOR HOUSE,
NAMBAZHIKKAD DESOM,
KANDANSSERY VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK.
BY ADVS.SHRI.PRABHU K.N.
SHRI.MANUMON A.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
AGED 71 YEARS,
PENSIONER, KIZHAKKOOT HOUSE,
ALOOR DESOM, KANDANSSERY VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK. PIN - 680 102.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
3 KOMALAVALLY,
AGED 66 YEARS,
W/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE,
ALOOR, ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK , THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)
2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
-:2:-
4 RAJESH,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE, ALOOR,
ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK ,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602(IS IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)
5 HARISH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE,
ALOOR, ALOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK ,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 602 (IS IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 21.05.2024 IN CRL M.A. 1/24)
BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1,R3 & R5
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON 14.02.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11814
Crl. R.P.No.232/2019
-:3:-
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision is the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur in Crl.A.No.206/2017 filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner herein in C.C.No.8/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chavakkad. The petitioner was prosecuted before the Trial Court by the first respondent herein for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short, 'NI Act'). 2. The allegation against the petitioner was that a cheque dated 25.11.2014 issued by him to the first respondent for an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- towards repayment of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- borrowed from the first respondent on 07.01.2013, with interest that accrued thereafter, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner, and that the petitioner did not care to make payment of the said amount despite receipt of statutory notice issued under Proviso (b) of the NI Act.
3. Before the Trial Court, the first respondent was examined as PW1 and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. From the part of the petitioner, two documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D2. After 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:4:- an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- to the first respondent with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thrissur embarked upon a re-appreciation of the entire evidence and found that there was no need to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner by the Trial Court. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months awarded by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation as such. Aggrieved by the above verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.
4. During the pendency of this revision, the first respondent passed away. The additional respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for additional respondents 3 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:5:-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had dealt with in detail about the background mentioned in the complaint pertaining to the claim of the first respondent advancing a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner, and argued that it would bring out inconsistencies rendering the case of the first respondent unbelievable. The complainant has stated in his complaint that while he was working as Branch Manager of Kandanassery Branch of Mattom Service Co-operative Bank, the wife of the first respondent (additional third respondent) was the Secretary of that Bank, and that both of them were held liable for an incident wherein two persons by name Jemshir and Anoop managed to obtain loan from the said bank by pledging spurious gold ornaments, and that the petitioner had to remit some amount to the said bank to avoid disciplinary action in connection with the said incident. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was said to have been borrowed by the petitioner from the first respondent for the above purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the averment in the complaint that even after one year, the petitioner failed to repay the said amount, and that after the issuance of a lawyer's notice on 17.11.2014, the petitioner issued the impugned cheque, are totally unbelievable. Another argument advanced by the 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:6:- learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below failed to appreciate the defence case in the correct perspective. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defence version about the manipulation and misuse of the signed blank cheque issued by the petitioner to one C.N.Rangeesh, the then Manager of the said bank, in connection with the payment in a chitty transaction, is more probable than the version of the complainant about the issuance of the impugned cheque to him.
7. As regards the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, it has to be stated that all those aspects were rightly discussed by the courts below in the impugned judgments and found against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has discussed in detail in paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment about the case put forward by the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that in the absence of any satisfactory material on record to substantiate the defence version in the above regard, it is not possible to discredit the prosecution case, especially in view of the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act. The Appellate Court has also dealt with in detail in paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the impugned judgment about the version of the petitioner in the 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:7:- statements tendered by him under Section 313 Cr.PC, and observed that the defence version sans credibility. There is absolutely no reason to unsettle the concurrent factual findings of the courts below in the above regard, arrived after an elaborate ratiocination of the evidence on record. As regards the contention of the petitioner about the issuance of a signed blank cheque by him, and the subsequent misuse and manipulation of the same by the first respondent, his wife and the then Bank Manager C.N.Rangeesh, both the courts below have rightly observed that the failure of the petitioner to initiate legal action against the aforesaid persons for resorting to malicious prosecution against him, itself would discredit the case put forward by him in the above regard. There is absolutely no reason to discard the above findings of the courts below. The law is now trite with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197] that once the person who had drawn a cheque admits his signature in that cheque, in the absence of cogent evidence pointing to vitiating circumstances, he cannot be heard to say that the other entries in that instrument were incorporated by somebody else by way of manipulations. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner failed to establish, even by way of preponderance of probability, that 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:8:- the impugned cheque was one he had issued for another purpose, and that it had been manipulated and misused by the first respondent and his wife. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner in this revision is devoid of merit.
8. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
10. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC 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 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:9:- 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.
11. Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows:
Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is 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 CrPC 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 2025:KER:11814 Crl. R.P.No.232/2019 -:10:- 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."
12. As far as the present case is concerned, none of the parameters highlighted in the case laws referred above warranting interference of this Court in revision, have been brought out by the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be held that the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, in Crl.A.No.206/2017 is not liable to be interfered with in this revision.
Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Appellate Court in the aforesaid judgment.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST