The revisional court's jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; it cannot reappraise evidence unless findings are perverse or erroneous.

ORDER

This criminal revision petition is preferred challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’), in Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2010 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The above appeal was preferred challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner's guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T.No.1030 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad.

2. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,960/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellate court as per the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The contentions raised before me are also urging for re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence.

4. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“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 notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ...”

5. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123 = (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“14. … Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”

6. This Court reiterated the same view in Saji Charivuka