Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..1.. 2025:KER:29962 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 103 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2024 IN Crl.A NO.255 OF 2023 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2023 IN ST NO.723 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1 SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.P. RAJEESH KUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD., MUBEENA COMPLEX, BALUSSERY MUKKU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673612 2 C.P.RAJEESH KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREEJANATHA AKSHAYA CHITS PVT. LTD., MUBEENA COMPLEX, BALUSSERY MUKKU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673612., PIN - 673612 BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI DHANUJA M.S RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1 NELLIKKAL NAZAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AMILANKUTTY, RESIDING AT POOLONNUKANDY HOUSE, UNNIKULAM VILLAGE, PONOOR DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..2.. 2025:KER:29962 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673574 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. NOEL JACOB M.S.AMAL DHARSAN(K/728/2015) SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..3.. 2025:KER:29962 O R D E R This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act'). 2. The 1st petitioner is a company engaged in the business of chits. The 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company. The 1st respondent filed a complaint as S.T.No. 723 of 2015 against the petitioners under Section 142 of the N.I.Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra (for short, 'the trial court'). According to the 1st respondent, he joined a chitty conducted by the petitioners for a sala value of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid monthly instalment of Rs.5,000/- from 20.09.2013 till 20.04.2015. It is alleged that, he altogether paid Rs.95,000/- to the petitioners towards the chitty instalments Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..4.. 2025:KER:29962 and towards the repayment of the said amount, Ext.P1 cheque was issued, which on presentation was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The notice issued under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was received by the 1st petitioner. The notice to the 2nd petitioner was returned since he did not claim it. 3. After trial, the trial court found the petitioners guilty under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and they were convicted for the said offence. The 2nd petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Both petitioners were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.95,000/-, in default, the 2nd petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before the II Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No. 255 of 2023. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..5.. 2025:KER:29962 filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 4. I have heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Noel Jacob, the learned counsel for 1st respondent and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. To prove the case of the 1st respondent, he himself gave evidence as PW1. He deposed in tune with the averments in the complaint. Even though he was cross- examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit his testimony. The 1st respondent has also produced Ext.P6 passbook. It would show that he has paid Rs.86,000/-. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the cheque amount of Rs.95,000/- is inclusive of the interest accrued. The petitioners did not challenge Ext.P6. The 1st respondent has succeeded in proving the transaction, Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..6.. 2025:KER:29962 execution and issuance of the cheque. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to rebut the presumption available to the 1st respondent under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. 6. The petitioners have taken a contention that there is no proper notice to 2nd petitioner. As stated already, the notice was served to the 1st petitioner. The notice sent to the 2nd petitioner was returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. The Postmaster was examined as PW2. It has come out in evidence that the notice has been issued in correct address. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to the presumption available under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and there is constructive service of notice. For the reasons stated above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2025 ..7.. 2025:KER:29962 However, the petitioners are granted three months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the sentence till the rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA