The court's revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, reinforcing the presumption of debt under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. This is a Revision Petition filed under S.397 and S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner as per judgment dated 28.04.2021, who is the sole accused in S.T.No. 192/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - Ill, Kottayam, confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam as per judgment in CrLAppeal No.59 of 2021 dated 07.07.2022. The respondents in this revision petition are State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor as well as the original complainant before the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as 'complainant' and 'accused' for convenience.

4. Shown off unnecessary embellishments, the case put up by the complainant / the 2nd respondent herein before the court below is as under:
It is alleged by the complainant that the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant as loan and issued a cheque No.690420 dated 19.09.2003 for the said sum with assurance of encashment. But when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for the reason 'Account closed'. Though legal notice intimating the dishonour and demanding the amount covered by the cheque was issued and accepted by the accused, he did not pay the amount. Accordingly, the complainant lodged prosecution alleging commission of offence Under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.LAct', hereinafter).

5. The trial court secured the presence of the accused for trial and evidence was recorded. The complainant got examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked.

6. After questioning the accused under S.313(1 )(b) of CrPC, though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defence evidence, no defence evidence was adduced.

7. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.LAct and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant under S.357(1) of CrPC and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also confirmed the said conviction and sentence on re - appreciation of the evidence.

8. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued to unsettle the concurrent verdicts entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court, finally he conceded that the revision petitioner / accused will be satisfied with grant of 3 months' time to pay the compensation.

9. It is the settled law that power of revision available to this Court under S.401 of CrPC r/w S.397 is not wide and exhaustive to re - appreciate the evidence to have a contra finding. In the decision reported in (1999 (1) KLT 735 (SC): (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275), State of Kerala v. Puttumana lllath 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 equated with the power of an appellate co