- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Muhammed K. v. State Of Kerala
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petitioner was accused in S.T. No. 321/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta. The trial court convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentenced him to imprisonment until the rising of the court, and directed payment of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation, with default imprisonment of thirty days. [1][2]
The petitioner’s criminal appeal was dismissed by the Court of Session, Kalpetta, which confirmed the conviction and sentence. He thereafter filed the revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. [3][4]
The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 60,000/- and issued a cheque in discharge of that liability; the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, and the payment notice was returned unserved. [5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the concurrent findings convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were illegal, perverse, or otherwise warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. [6][7]
- Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court required interference. [8][9]
Arguments of the Parties
Accused/Petitioner's Defence
- The accused contended that he had issued the cheque as security in a transaction between the complainant and Sahadevan. He relied on Ext.D1 agreement and examined Sahadevan as DW1. [10]
Complainant's Case
- The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 60,000/- and issued the cheque in discharge of that liability, which was subsequently dishonoured for insufficient funds. [5][11]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda | The revisional court should not re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court unless the findings are perverse, legally untenable, grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable, unsupported by material, based on ignored material facts, or reflect arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. | The High Court found no such defect in the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge and therefore confirmed the conviction. [7] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The courts below rejected the accused’s security-cheque defence after considering Ext.D1 and DW1’s evidence. The agreement showed that liability in the relevant transaction rested on the complainant, making the accused’s version improbable and unreliable. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in that conclusion. [10][6]
Once the defence was rejected, the complainant’s evidence concerning the borrowing, liability, and issuance of Ext.P1 cheque was accepted as reliable. [12]
The High Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is limited and that it should not reassess evidence already considered by the trial and appellate courts unless their findings disclose a serious legal or evidentiary defect amounting to a miscarriage of justice. No such defect was established. [7]
The Court also found no sufficient ground to interfere with the sentence, which consisted only of imprisonment until the rising of the court together with compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. [8]
Holding and Implications
REVISION PETITION DISMISSED. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were confirmed. The petitioner was, however, granted three months from the date of the order to pay the compensation to the complainant. [9]
The direct effect was that the conviction and sentence remained operative, subject to the three-month period allowed for payment of compensation. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or establish a new precedent.
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.:— The revision petitioner is the accused in the case S.T. No. 321/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta.
2. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed him to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days.
3. The petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 76/2016 before the Court of Session, Kalpetta, challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence and dismissed the appeal.
4. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilty, conviction and sentence passed against him by the courts below, the accused has filed this revision petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant and the accused were friends. On 24.06.2009, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant. On 25.07.2009, at the house of the accused, he issued a cheque for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the complainant in discharge of the liability. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The notice was returned without serving on the accused. The accused did not pay the amount of the cheque.
7. During the trial of the case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and a witness was examined on his side as PW2. Exts.P1 to P7 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused.
8. When examined as PW1, the complainant gave evidence regarding the borrowing of the amount by the accused from him and issuing of the cheque by the accused in discharge of the liability.
9. The plea of the accused was that he had issued the cheque as security in a transaction between the complainant and one Sahadevan. In order to prove that transaction, Ext.D1 agreement was produced and proved by the accused and Sahadevan was examined as DW1.
10. However, after appreciating the evidence of DW1 and the contents of Ext.D1 agreement, the trial court found that, as per Ext.D1 agreement, the liability to pay the amount in that transaction was on the complainant and therefore, the plea of the accused that he issued a cheque as security in that transaction cannot be accepted as probable and reliable. The appellate court has concurred with this finding. I find no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings entered by the courts below in this regard.
11. When the plea raised by the accused is negatived, the evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction and the execution and issuing of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused in discharge of the liability has to be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. The courts below have accepted the evidence of PW1 as reliable and entered the findings against the accused.
12. The courts below have appreciated the evidence and made concurrent findings. I find no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings made by the courts below. Ordinarily, in revisional jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of this Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. 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 the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the High Court shall not interfere with such finding or decision in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction (See Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda . : (2018) 8 SCC 165 : AIR 2018 SC 3173). Conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is only to be confirmed.
13. The trial court has imposed only a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court on the petitioner/accused with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant. There is also no sufficient ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused.
14. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is confirmed. However, the petitioner/accused is granted a period of three months from today to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant.
Alert