The court emphasized the reverse onus principle under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, requiring the accused to provide evidence against the presumption of a legally enforceable debt.

ORDER

The revision petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta (Appellate Court) in Crl.Appeal No.8/2010, confirming the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla (Trial Court) in S.T.No.1719/2005, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, “N.I.Act”). The revision petitioner was the accused and the 1st respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court.

The facts in brief:

2. The first respondent had filed the complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.58,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability, the revision petitioner had issued Ext.P1 cheque in his favour. However, the cheque, on presentation to the bank for collection, was dishonoured by Ext.P2 memorandum due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the bank account. Although the first respondent had issued Ext P4 lawyer notice, which was received by the revision petitioner, she failed to pay the demanded amount. Hence, the revision petitioner had committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

Trial

3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to her. In the Trial, the first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating questions put to her in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, Cr.P.C’). The revision petitioner did not let in any defence evidence.

Trial Court Judgment

4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials on record, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay an amount of Rs.58,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.8/2010 before the Appellate Court.

Appellate Court judgment

6. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

7. It is assailing the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below, the revision petition is filed.

8. Heard; Sri.P.Sathisan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Sri.Jacob Chacko, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.

9. The question is whether there is any illegality, impropriety and irregularity in the judgments passed by the courts below?

10. It is well settled that the revisional power of this Court is to be sparingly exercised and only in cases of exceptional rarity. The power of this Court is in the nature of a supervisory jurisdiction, to correct patent errors, manifest illegality and when there is total miscarriage of justice. The revisional power of this Court cannot be equated to the powers of the Appellate/Second Appellate Court.

11. InSanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr [ (2015) 3 SCC 123 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly laid down the scope and purport of the powers under Secs.397 to 401 of the Cr.P.C.

It is apposite to extract the revisional declaration of law, which reads as follows:

“14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there