Ashida Rasheed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 10, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1281565

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1281565
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Apr 10, 2025
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/403/2025
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashida Rasheed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (for short ‘the n.i. act’).2. the 2nd respondent filed a private complaintagainst the petitioner under section 142 of the n. i. act before the judicial first class magistrate court - iii, kanjirappally (for short ‘the trial court’) as s. t. no.12/2017. the case of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹1,60,000/- from her husband for her personal purpose. the petitioner repaid ₹55,000/- on 30.05.2015 and sought one month's time for the balance payment. in the meanwhile, on 19.06.2015, her husband died and when demand was made for the balance amount, the petitioner issued ext.p1 cheque to the 2 nd respondent towards the balance amount which on presentation was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. even though statutory notice under section 138(b) of the n. i. act was issued and received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. hence, the prosecution was launched.3. before the trial court, on the side of thecomplainant, she herself was examined as pw1 and exts.p1 to p6 were marked. after the trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under section 138 of the n. i. act and she was convicted for the said offence. she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of ₹1,60,000/- (rupees one lakh and sixty thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period ofthree months. the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the additional district and sessions court, pala (for short ‘the appellate court’) as criminal appeal no.104/2023. the appellate court dismissed the appeal. this criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the trial court as well as the order of the appellate court.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.5. to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 403 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 IN CRL.A NO.104 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALA ARISING OUT OF THE

JUDGMENT DATED 17.05.2023 IN ST NO.12 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, KANJIRAPPALLY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ASHIDA RASHEED AGED 45 YEARS W/O RASHEED, VALIYAKALAYIL (H) CHARALABHAGOM, ERUMELY P.O, ERUMELY, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686509 BY ADVS. JUSTINE JACOB SUMESH P.S. MERIN JOSE ARSHID P. NOUSHAD JUSTIN DAVID RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 FATHIMA MUHAMMED SALLY AGED 56 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED SALLY, PALACKATHADATHIL (H) PATHIKKAKAVUBHAGOM, KANAKKAPALAM P.O ERUMELY, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686509 BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I. Act’).

2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint

against the petitioner under Section 142 of the N. I. Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Kanjirappally (for short ‘the trial court’) as S. T. No.12/2017. The case of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹1,60,000/- from her husband for her personal purpose. The petitioner repaid ₹55,000/- on 30.05.2015 and sought one month's time for the balance payment. In the meanwhile, on 19.06.2015, her husband died and when demand was made for the balance amount, the petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque to the 2 nd respondent towards the balance amount which on presentation was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the N. I. Act was issued and received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution was launched.

3. Before the trial court, on the side of the

complainant, she herself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After the trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and she was convicted for the said offence. She was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of ₹1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh and sixty thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of

three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Pala (for short ‘the appellate court’) as Criminal Appeal No.104/2023. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the trial court as well as the order of the appellate court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. To prove the case of the 2 nd respondent, she herself gave evidence as PW1. She deposed in tune with the averments in the complaint. Even though she was cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit her testimony. The petitioner admitted the

signature in the cheque. According to the petitioner, her husband and the 2nd respondent were money lenders and long back, an amount of ₹1,60,000/- was borrowed from the

husband of the 2nd respondent which was repaid. It was further stated that Ext.P1 was obtained by coercion and fraud. But absolutely no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same. No complaint was filed by the petitioner before any Police Officer nor did she gave stop payment request to the bank. The 2nd respondent has

succeeded in proving the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheque. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to rebut the presumption available to the 2nd respondent under Sections 118 and 139 of the

N. I. Act. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted three months’ time to appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount.

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 403/2025 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT S.T NO 12/2017 DATED 17.05.2023 OF JFCM-III, KANJIRAPPALLY

Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

CRL.APPEAL NO.104/2023 DATED ON 08.01.2025

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties Ashida Rasheed vs State of Kerala Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath