The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a businessman in a cheque dishonour case, ruling that a technical defect in the complaint filed through a power of attorney holder could not invalidate the entire criminal proceedings after a full-fledged trial had already taken place.
Justice G. Girish passed the order while deciding a criminal revision petition filed by Kannan, former Managing Director of AA Cashew Company, challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the dishonour of two cheques dated February 24, 2014, amounting to ₹19.75 lakh and ₹10 lakh respectively. The complainant, M/s Adisiva Enterprises, alleged that the cheques issued by the accused were returned unpaid.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam had convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment along with compensation of ₹29.5 lakh. The appellate court later confirmed the conviction and sentence.
The accused then approached the High Court in revision.
Before the High Court, the petitioner mainly argued that the complaint itself was legally defective because it had been filed through a power of attorney holder who did not specifically state in the complaint that she had direct personal knowledge of the transaction.
Relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings, the defence contended that the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the complaint in the absence of such pleadings.
Court’s Observation
The High Court, however, refused to accept the argument.
Justice G. Girish noted that the complainant himself later appeared before the trial court and gave evidence regarding the transactions. The accused also got full opportunity to cross-examine him during trial.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the accused were delivered in situations where objections had been raised at the initial stage itself, immediately after process was issued. In the present case, no such prompt challenge was made.
Referring to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court said that convictions cannot be overturned merely because of procedural irregularities unless there is an actual “failure of justice.”
“The verdicts rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are not liable to be overturned,” the bench observed while holding that no prejudice had been caused to the accused.
Court’s Decision
While sustaining the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court slightly modified the sentence.
Instead of six months’ simple imprisonment, the Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. However, the direction to pay compensation of ₹29.5 lakh and the default sentence for non-payment were left unchanged.
Case Details
Case Title: Kannan v. M/s Adisiva Enterprises & State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.R.P No.1038 of 2018
Judge: Justice G. Girish
Decision Date: May 18, 2026
