Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
G. Selvam – Appellant
Versus
R. Karthikeyan – Respondents
CRL.R.C. No. 1522 of 2012
Decided on : 06-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Madhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C.D. Johnson, Advocate.
Revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Revisional power cannot be exercised as a second appellate power.
Headnote:NI Act - Criminal Revision - Sections 397, 401 - Summary: The accused borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a promissory note and a cheque. The cheque was dishonored, and the complainant initiated a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The accused filed a criminal revision challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The court held that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court also emphasized that revisional power cannot be exercised as a second appellate power. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision. The accused was directed to serve the remaining sentence, and any deposited amount was to be disbursed to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The accused borrowed money from the complainant and issued a promissory note and a cheque. The cheque was dishonored, and the complainant initiated a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act.Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The accused filed a criminal revision challenging the concurrent findings of fact.Issues:
Whether the court can exercise revisional jurisdiction and interfere with the conviction in the absence of an error of law or jurisdictional error.Ratio Decidendi:
Revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Revisional power cannot be exercised as a second appellate power.Final Decision:
The court found no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision. The accused was directed to serve the remaining sentence, and any deposited amount was to be disbursed to the complainant.JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Revision preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.2 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore in S.T.C.No.153 of 2009.)
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.2 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore in S.T.C.No.153 of 2009.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively.
3. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- on 11.05.2008 and executed a demand promissory note (Ex.P1); thereafter, the accused issued a cheque dated 18.05.2008 for Rs.13,00,000/- (Ex.P2), which was presented by him (complainant) on 27.09.2008, returned with the endorsement “exceeds arrangement” vide bank memo (Ex.P3); he (complainant) issued a statutory demand notice dated 30.09.2008 (Ex.P5), which was received by the accused on 30.10.2008 by acknowledgment card (Ex.P6); the accused issued a reply notice dated 30.10.2008 (Ex.P7) repudiating the debt; therefore, he (complainant) initiated a prosecution in S.T.C.No.153 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity “the NI Act”).
4. On appearance, the accused was questioned under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation.
5. To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the accused, three witnesses viz. Senthilkumar (D.W.1), Manokaran (D.W.2) and the accused (Selvam-D.W.3) were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.
6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.
7. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 10.12.2011 in S.T.C.No.153 of 2009, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2012 that was filed by the accused was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore on 08.10.2012. Challenging the concurrent findings of fact, the accused has filed the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.
8. Heard Mr.K.Madhu, learned counsel for the accused and Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel for the complainant.
9. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to state here that, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI [(2017) 14 SCC 809], has held that revisional jurisdiction is a discretionary one and can be exercised only if the High Court finds that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of paragraph 10 of the order pa
