The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to correcting legal improprieties or perversity in findings; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence where trial and appellate courts have consistently established execution of a cheque and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139.

ORDER :

1. Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I. Act”).

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.165/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur.

3. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant, and in discharge of the said liability, the accused issued two cheques on the same day for Rs.1,50,000/- each, one dated 11.01.1999 and the other dated 28.01.1999, for the said amount in the complainant’s favour. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured, stating the reason “funds insufficient.” Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 18.02.1999 to the accused informing her of the dishonour and demanding payment of the cheque amount, which was returned on 22.02.1999. The accused neither paid the amount nor sent a reply. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. During the trial, the complainant himself got examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. From the side of the defence, the accused was examined as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 & D2.

5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted her. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of CR.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. A. No.333/2009 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court entered into a finding of guilt under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused without properly appreciating the facts and evidence brought out in this case. According to the learned counsel, although a serious challenge was raised by the defence regarding the signature on Ext.P1 cheque, undermining the same, the trial court as well as the appellate court found that the complainant had succeeded in proving the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. The learned counsel further urged that the complainant miserably failed to prove the transaction alleged in this case, as well as the execution of Ext.P1 cheque and therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by t he trial court, which was confirmed in appeal. According to the learned counsel, the complainant had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the transaction alleged as well as the execution of Ext.P1 cheque, and hence, the trial court is absolutely right in drawing a presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order requires no interference.

10. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the rival contentions raised, it is worthwhile to note that the scope of interference in a revision petition is limited. By a series of judicial pronouncements,