The judgment establishes that the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is a reverse onus incumbent on the accused, who must provide evidence to counter it.

O R D E R

This is a revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter will be referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) and the revision petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.No.4839 of 2015 on the files Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. The respondents herein are the original complainant as well as the State of Kerala.

2. The revision petitioner impugns judgment in S.T.No.4839 of 2015 dated 26.02.2018 and the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2018 dated

29.10.2019 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on admission.

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

5. Summary of the case put up by the complainant before the trial court is as under: The complainant launched prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter will be referred as NI Act for convenience), when cheque for Rs.2 lakh dated 25.07.2015 alleged to be issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, was dishonoured, when it was presented for collection. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant issued legal notice of demand and the accused failed to repay the same even after notice.

6. The trial court secured the presence of the accused for trial and during trial, PW1 to PW3 examined and Exts.P1 to P7 series were marked on the side of the complainant.

7. After questioning 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.

8. The trial court appraised the evidence and finally convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,46,500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of six months was ordered.

9. The accused assailed the judgment of the trial court in Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2018 before the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam and as per judgment dated 29.10.2019, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the conviction, while modifying and reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court under Section 138 of the NI Act and payment of fine of Rs.2,46,500/- as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months was ordered.

10. While attempting to upset the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to substantiate anything, so as to invoke the power of revision available to this Court in any manner. Accordingly, he prayed for granting six months time to pay the amount.

11. Going by the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal, in fact, the same are matters required to be addressed on re-appreciation of evidence. The power of this Court is not exhaustive to re-appreciate the evidence.

12. 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 equate