Judicial revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting gross errors; mere possible alternate views should not lead to interference.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

Criminal.R.P No.54 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Crl.Appeal No.54 of 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kollam, in judgment dated 19.02.2020 in S.T No.203 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri.Pratheesh.P, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The revision petitioner is the sole accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.18,20,150/-.

4. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner/accused executed Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.15,42,500/-. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Even after the receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount covered by the cheque.

5. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The revision petitioner appeared on summons. He pleaded not guilty to the offence alleged.

6. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 in support of the averments in the complaint. She stated that the accused received 70 sovereigns of gold from the complainant in connection with the marriage of his daughter. The accused calculated the market value of the gold as Rs.15,42,500/- for 70 sovereigns. In discharge of the said liability, he executed Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured stating the reason “funds insufficient”. The plea of the accused during the trial was that the complainant and her second husband demanded share from the family property and during the year 2016, the complainant along with her husband and three others created quarrel after reaching the house of the accused and he was restrained and coerced to sign the cheque. The complainant has proved the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 139 has been drawn in favour of him. The accused failed to place any material to rebut the statutory presumption drawn in favour of the complainant.

7. I have carefully scanned the pleadings and evidence. I failed to find any misreading of records by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court, after meticulously analyzing the findings confirmed the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.

8. 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 court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the mat