Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. Jayakumar, J
K.K.SURESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 687 OF 2012|Crl.A NO.439 OF 2008|ST NO.2298 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN, SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and should respect concurrent findings unless glaring errors are identified.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 to 401 - Revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque - Trial court imposed simple imprisonment for 10 days and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-; reduced by appellate court - Revisional jurisdiction not akin to appellate jurisdiction; re-evaluation of evidence not permissible unless glaring errors found - (Paras 4-5, 10-11)
(B) Jurisdiction of Revisional Court - Cannot re-appreciate evidence already evaluated by lower courts unless perverse findings are identified - Glaring features leading to gross miscarriage of justice must be shown for interference - (Paras 4-5, 8)
Facts of the case:
Revision petitioner convicted for the offence under Section 138, with a compensation order; appellate court modified the sentence, retaining the compensation amount.
Findings of Court:
No illegality or impropriety found in concurrent findings; initial burden of proof on complainant satisfied, with no evidence rebutting presumption under the Act by petitioner.
Issues: The core issues regarded the scope of revisional powers and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated limitations of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing no reappraisal of evidence unless clearly warranted by the circumstances; maintained that compensation aspects in dishonour of cheque cases should be prioritized.
Result: Revision petition allowed in part; sentence maintained, with time granted for compensation payment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging conviction under section 138. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for re-appreciation of evidence not permissible. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 3. limits of revisional jurisdiction outlined. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. burden of proof on complainant established. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. final decision granting additional time for compensation payment. (Para 8) |
| 6. emphasis on compensation over punitive measures. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This Revision Petition is preferred challenging the 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.439/2008 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Fast Track, Thiruvananthapuram. The above appeal was preferred challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T.No.2298/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Nedumangad.
2. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven more days. The appellate court, as per the impugned judgment, modified and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
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
