Kerala High Court
P.H.A.Kareem Haji vs K.V.Muhammed on 11 March, 2026
2026:KER:22011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.2967 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2006 IN Crl.A NO.328
OF 2000 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2000 IN CC
NO.422 OF 1997 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -
II, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.H.A.KAREEM HAJI
PROPRIETOR, P.O.PATTANNUR, AYIPUZHA,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY JOSEPH (KANNUR)
SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 K.V.MUHAMMED
IRRIKKUR AMSOM, PATTUVAM DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.
SRI JAYAKRISHNAN U., PP,
DEERAJ C RAJAN, AMICUS CURIAE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.03.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2955/2006, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:22011
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 &
2955 of 2006
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.2955 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.319 OF 2000 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2000 IN CC
NO.421 OF 1997 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -
II, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.H.A.KAREEM HAJI
S/O.HAMEED HAJI, PROPRIETOR, P.O. PATTANNUR,
AYIPUZHA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY JOSEPH (KANNUR)
SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 K.V.MUHAMMED
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, IRRIKUR AMSOM,
PATTUVAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI JAYAKRISHNAN U., PP,
DEERAJ C RAJAN, AMICUS CURIAE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.03.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2967/2006, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:22011
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 &
2955 of 2006
-3-
G. GIRISH, J.
--------------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.421 of 1997 and C.C.No.422 of 1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kannur. The offence alleged against him in the aforesaid cases is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2967 of 2006 relates to C.C.No.422 of 1997, in which the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.50,000/- is the issue, and Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2955 of 2006 relates to C.C.No.421 of 1997 about the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.20,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have issued to the complainant / 1st respondent. In both the above cases, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdicts in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc - II), Thalassery, who considered the aforesaid appeals, declined to interfere with the 2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -4- findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts, the petitioner is here before this Court with these revision petitions.
2. Since there were no representations from the part of the petitioner on repeated posting dates, notices were issued to the petitioner from the Registry. The aforesaid notices were returned 'unserved'. In the above circumstances, Adv.Sri.Dheeraj C.Rajan, the learned counsel, was appointed as the amicus curiae to represent the revision petitioner.
3. Heard the learned amicus curiae representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The learned amicus curiae brought my attention to a judgment rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, on 29.09.2001 in O.S.No.347 of 1997, as per which, the petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,485/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the plaintiff therein, who is none other 2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -5- than the complainant / 1st respondent in these revision petitions. Adverting to the relevant paragraphs in the aforesaid judgment, the learned amicus curiae pointed out that it is the amount of Rs.70,000/-, which is covered by the two cheques involved in these case, which has been dealt with in the aforesaid cases, and that ultimately, the learned Munsiff had arrived at the finding that the only liability of the petitioner herein was to pay Rs.15,485/-. Thus, it is contended that the prosecution initiated in respect of the cheques bearing an amount of Rs.50,000/- and 20,000/- respectively, will not stand as against the petitioner herein.
5. The learned amicus curiae further submitted that, though the decree and judgment rendered by the learned Munsiff in O.S.No.347 of 1997 were challenged in appeal, the results of the above appeal are not known. It is for the above reason that the Appellate Court did not accept the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard about the implications of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court in connection with the liability incurred by the petitioner with the complainant. There is absolutely no reason to 2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -6- take a different view in that matter from that which has been held by the Appellate Court. Since it is not revealed as to whether the decree and judgment rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, in O.S.No.347 of 1997 have attained finality, it is not possible to unsettle the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on the basis of the judgment rendered by the learned Munsiff on 29.09.2001 in O.S.No.347 of 1997.
6. However, it appears that the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months awarded by the courts below as punishment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence involved in these cases. The liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to a great extent, is of quasi civil nature. It is the inability of the offender to make payment of the cheque amount even after the receipt of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which results in the criminal prosecution in such cases. It is well settled that in the nature of such cases, the debtor should be afforded with an 2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -7- opportunity to make good the loss sustained by the complainants by effecting payment of the cheque amount, and that he can be mulcted with the liability to undergo imprisonment, if only the offender refuses to make such payment. Having regard to the above established principles of law, I am of the view that the sentence of Simple Imprisonment awarded by the courts below is liable to be set aside. The petitioner will be liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in C.C.No.422 of 1997, and Rs.20,000/- in C.C.No.421 of 1997, with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for two months and one month respectively as punishment for the offences found to have been committed in these cases.
7. In the result, these revision petitions stand disposed of as follows:-
(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in both these cases, are hereby confirmed.
2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -8-
(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded, the petitioner is sentenced to fine Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for two months in C.C.No.422 of 1997, and fine Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for one month in C.C.No.421 of 1997.
(iii) The petitioner is given a period of six months' time from today to remit the fine amount before the Trial Court.
(iv) If the petitioner fails to remit the fine amount within the period as directed above, the Trial Court shall proceed with the lawful steps towards the realisation of the fine by enforcing the default clause of sentence.
8. The Registry shall transmit the case records, along with a copy of this order, to the Trial Court for enforcement of the sentence awarded, in accordance with this order.
2026:KER:22011 Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 & 2955 of 2006 -9- This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae Adv.Sri.Dheeraj C.Rajan, in addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/11.03.2026
2026:KER:22011
Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2967 &
2955 of 2006
-10-
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 2967 OF 2006 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.29.2001 IN O.S. NO. 347/97 PASSED BY HON'BLE MUNSIFF, THALIPARAMBA.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 112 OF
2001 FILED BEFORE SUBORDINATE JUDGE,
PAYYANNUR BY 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
COMPLAINANT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT/COMPLAINANT IN I.A. NO. 3091 OF 1997 OF O.S. NO. 347 OF 97.