Court affirms limited scope of review in concurrent convictions unless clear judicial errors are established.

O R D E R

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.

2. The Revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.322/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. 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 pay a fine of Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Forty Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur as Crl. Appeal No. 55/2016. 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. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has not proved the source to raise an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. For that reason itself, the prosecution is to be collapsed. But, this Court perused the impugned judgments. The trial court and the appellate court considered this point in detail. The appellate court found that there is an explanation for the source to the complainant to lend the money. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The second point raised by the petitioner is that the execution of the cheque is not proved. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the execution is proved. This Court cannot substitute the same unless there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. I see no reason to interfere with that finding itself.

5. 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 revision petitioner as per the impugned judgments. Considering the request of the revision petitioner, twelve months time is granted to pay the fine amount and to serve the sentence. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period. If any amount is already deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted towards the fine amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 1^st respondent, in accordance with law.

If the 1st respondent file an afÏdavit before the jurisdictional court stating that he received the entire amount, the jurisdictional court will enter the same in t