Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal revision petition dismissed; convictio...

VIRONI JOSEPH v. N.N. SUKUMARAN and STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.Rev.Pet.No. 2865 of 2005

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • M.N.KRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2008-09-19
Court Decision / Holding
The revision petition is dismissed with the conviction upheld. The High Court modified the sentence: imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with default imprisonment for one month. The accused is to surrender for payment of the fine by the specified date.
Final Disposition
Criminal revision petition dismissed; conviction upheld; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000 with default imprisonment if the fine is not paid.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • VIRONI JOSEPH

Respondents

  • N.N. Sukumaran
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • John Jude Isaac

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G. Gopakumar
  • • Thomas John Ambooken

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a case arising from a cheque allegedly issued by the accused that bounced for want of funds. The complainant alleged that the cheque Ext. P1 was dishonoured despite due statutory notice, leading to prosecution. The trial court (C.C. No.359/01 before the JFCM-I, Cherthala) convicted the accused and sentenced one month imprisonment with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and default imprisonment for 15 days. On appeal (Crl. Appeal No.629/04 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alappuzha) the conviction and sentence were affirmed. The revision petitioner contended that the materials before the court were inadequate to convict and that she had no knowledge of the signature on the cheque; she claimed her son had wrongfully taken a cheque leaf and handed it over to the complainant. The court below had relied on PW1’s testimony and Exhibits P1–P6 and had considered signature verification. The High Court discussed the role of signature comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurahiman, and held that while signature comparison is permissible when supported by material, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The High Court upturned the sentence, directing imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposing a fine of Rs.50,000 (with default imprisonment for one month) while dismissing the revision petition challenging the conviction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 73, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 315, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • No court shall enter into an ultimate finding merely on the basis of the comparison of signature.
  • Comparison of signature can be used to assist truth finding when materials are available; it is not universally required.
  • It is not necessary to file an application for sending the disputed cheque for comparison by expert in every case under Section 138 NI Act.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the materials before the court were insufficient to sustain a conviction. She asserts that she had no knowledge of the signature on the cheque, claiming her son may have taken a cheque leaf and handed it to the complainant. The defence relies on the principle that signature verification should not be the sole basis for conviction, and that expert comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act should be used only when necessary and supported by material, not mandatorily for every case under Section 138 NI Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The complainant’s case is that the accused issued the cheque Ext. P1, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds after statutory notice. The trial court, and later the appellate court, correctly evaluated the evidence, including PW1’s testimony and Exhibits P1–P6, and concluded that the cheque was executed by the accused. The High Court’s reasoning on the role of signature comparison and the reliance on Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurahiman supports affirming the conviction while recognizing that sentence could be suitably modified.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurahiman1999 (2) KLT 634PositiveThe court held that there is no universal requirement to send a disputed cheque for expert comparison; section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to expert opinion, and signature comparison may be used as a corroborative tool when materials exist, but cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against VIRONI JOSEPH v. N.N. SUKUMARAN and STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2865 of 2005() -----------------------------C.A..629/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.359/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VIRONI JOSEPH, PROPRIETRIEX, DINU EXPORTS INDUSTRIES, VELIMPARAMBILE, WARD NO.14, MARARIKULAM SOUTH PANCHAYATH, PATHIRAPPALLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC ## RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- ## 1. N.N. SUKUMARAN, KANNAKATTU HOUSE, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R1 SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL. R.P. No. 2865/05 ORDER ON CRL.M.A. No. 18356/05 IN CRL.R.P. No. 2865/05 DISMISSED 19.9.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. ## **M.N.KRISHNAN, J.** ## **-------------------------Crl. R.P. No. 2865 OF 2005 --------------------Dated this the 19[th ] day of September, 2008** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, in Crl. Appeal No.629/04. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment in C.C. No.359/01 of the JFCM-I, Cherthala, whereby the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the materials available before the court is not at all sufficient to enter into a conviction against the accused. The case of the complainant is that the accused has issued the cheque Ext.P1 and which when presented for encashment returned with an endorsement “insufficiency of funds”. In spite of statutory notice issued, no payment was made and that had resulted in launching of the criminal prosecution. 3. On the other hand, the accused would contend that she had no acquaintance at all with the complainant and her son had Crl.R.P. No.2865/05 2 removed one of her cheque leaves and might have signed and handed over the same to the complainant and therefore there is no execution of a cheque by the accused in favour of the complainant. In the court below PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked. Learned counsel had cited before me the decision reported in **Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurahiman** [1999 (2) KLT 634] whereby this court held that it is not necessary to file an application before the court for sending the disputed cheque for comparison by expert. Comparison by an expert is dealt with under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not a universal principle that whenever the signature is disputed, the matter has to be referred to a finger print expert. It has been held by the Apex Court as well as this court that when sufficient materials are available before the court and when a comparison of the signature can be done, it can be used as a method to find out the truth. The caution is that no court shall enter into an ultimate finding merely on the basis of the comparison of signature. Suppose there are sufficient acceptable evidence tendered in a case coupled with comparison of signature, then there is no mistake in arriving at a decision. In the cases involved under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if every cheque is sent Crl.R.P. No.2865/05 3 for comparison of signature then the very statutory purpose behind section 138 of the NI Act will be defeated. But it does not mean that when there is a real need it need not be sent. 4. Now the first question to be considered in this case is that whether there is any real need to send the disputed cheque for comparison of signature. PW1 has sworn to the factum of the handing over of the cheque to him. The court below had also compared the signatures and both the courts were satisfied about the genuineness of the signature contained in Ext.P1 cheque. DW1, the accused, was examined. It is her definite case that it was her son who had taken the cheque from her and handed it over to the complainant. But he is not examined. It is true that in the light of section 315 of the criminal procedure code there cannot be such a duty cast upon the accused to examine a particular witness. This court also held that in a case of this nature the rival contentions of the accused as well as the complainant has to be taken into consideration and the evidence has to be appreciated. It is the case of the accused that her son stealthily removed a cheque leaf of the mother and handed it over to another person. So an analysis of the materials, as correctly done by the court below, will lead to the Crl.R.P. No.2865/05 4 irresistible conclusion that she herself had executed the cheque. The factum of dishonour and statutory compliance under the provisions of the NI Act are proved and therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the courts below in arriving at conviction. 5. The last question to be considered is with regard to the quantum of sentence. The trial court had imposed a punishment of one month's imprisonment with a compensation of Rs.50,000, I feel interest of justice can be met by altering the sentence and making the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, which on payment can be disbursed to the complainant. If the accused commits default in making payment of fine, she shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below for receiving the sentence and for payment of fine on 19.11.08. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ## **M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE** vps Crl.R.P. No.2865/05 5 **M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE** vps Crl.R.P. No.2865/05 6