CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2025 IN CRL.A NO.107 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.05.2022 IN ST NO.246 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V, KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: SHAJITH AGED 37 YEARS S/O. DASAN KOTTAYE, KOTTAYE HOUSE, PERAVOOR. P.O, KUNITHALAMUKKU, PERAVOOR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670673 BY ADVS. ADARSH KURIAN K.V.PAVITHRAN JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL ABHILASH MATHOOR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 M/S MODERN ENTERPRISES DOOR NO. ELP VIII/356, CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28690 NEAR PUTHIYA KOTTAKKAVU, ELAYAVOOR PANCHAYAT, THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR TALUK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PRAMOD K., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AJEESH V.P., PIN - 670002 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SMT.SREEJA V., SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28690 O R D E R This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act'). 2. The 1st respondent is a commercial firm. It filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 142 of the NI Act as S.T.C.No.246/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V, Kannur (for short, 'the trial court'). The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner purchased mattresses on credit basis from the 1st respondent firm and towards the discharge of the said liability, Ex.P1 cheque was issued, which, on presentation, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act was issued and received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution was launched. CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28690 3. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,079/- to the 1st respondent under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.107 of 2022. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 4. I have heard Sri.Adarsh Kurian, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. There was no appearance for the 1st respondent. 5. To prove the case of the 1st respondent, the managing partner of the 1st respondent was examined as PW1. He deposed CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28690 in tune with the averments in the complaint. Even though, PW1 and PW2 were cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit their testimony. As stated already, the definite case of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner purchased mattresses from it on credit basis and towards the discharge of the said debt, Ex.P1 cheque was issued. To prove the said case, the 1st respondent produced Exts.P10 series, P11 and P12. Ext.P10 series documents are the tax invoice forms issued by the 1st respondent in the name of the petitioner. Ext.P11 is the ledger account of Kottayi Rexine, Peravoor for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. Ext.P12 is the ledger account of Kottayi Rexine, Peravoor for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. The closing balance of Ext.P12 document shows an outstanding liability of Rs.1,28,079/-. The amount mentioned in Ext.P1 also is the same. Thus, the 1st respondent has succeeded in proving the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheque. The defence case is that he had some transactions with one CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28690 Mr.Anoop and the cheque in question was issued as a security to the said transaction. But, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the said defence plea and the so called Anoop was not examined. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P8 partnership deed, argued that the partnership was formed after 01.04.2012, whereas Ext.P11 ledger account is for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. But such a plea was not taken either before the trial court, the appellate court or even in this revision petition. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the 1st respondent are sufficient to prove the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheque. The petitioner failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption available to the 1st respondent under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months' time CRL.REV.PET NO. 359 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28690 to appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the fine amount. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS