Point of Law: It has been settled in law that accused can either adduce independent evidence or rely on evidence tendered by complainant to rebut presumptions.

ORDER :

1. This is a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner as per judgment dated 30.11.2019, who is the sole accused in S.T.No.723/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta, confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Pathanamthitta as per judgment in Crl.Appeal No.93/2019 dated 13.05.2022. The respondents in this revision petition are State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor as well as the original complainant before the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as `complainant' and ‘accused’ for convenience.

4. Shown off unnecessary embellishments, the case put up by the complainant/the 2nd respondent herein before the court below is as under:

It is alleged by the complainant that the accused borrowed Rs.3,50,000/-from the complainant as loan and issued a cheque dated 02.03.2014 for the said sum with assurance of encashment. But when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Though legal notice intimating the dishonour and demanding the amount covered by the cheque was issued and accepted by the accused, he did not pay the amount. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The trial court secured the presence of the accused for trial and evidence was recorded. The complainant got examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked.

6. After examination of the accused under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C, though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defence evidence, no defence evidence was adduced.

7. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the said conviction and sentence on re-appreciation of the evidence.

8. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued to unsettle the concurrent verdicts entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court, finally he conceded that the revision petitioner/accused will be satisfied with modification of sentence to one for a day till rising of court and payment of compensation. Further he submitted that 8 months' time may also be granted to pay the compensation.

9. It is the settled law that power of revision available to this Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 397 is not wide and exhaustive to re-appreciate the evidence to have a contra finding. In the decision reported in [(1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, the Apex Court, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, laid down the following principles (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5):

“5. …... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same 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 no