Revisional jurisdiction has limited scope; concurrent findings by lower courts upheld unless illegality or impropriety is shown.

ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to allow this Criminal Revision Petition and therein set aside the judgment dated 26.04.2024 on the files of the Additional District & Sessions Court111, Pathanamthitta in Criminal Appeal No. 91 /2018 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court 11, Ranny in S. T. No.22/2017 and therein acquit the accused of the offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.”

[SIC]

2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.22/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ranny. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay compensation of Rs.6,03,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Three Thousand Only) to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed under of the NI Act.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment. Six months time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence.