Revisional courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear error.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.494/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Thamarassery. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , to Simple Imprisonment for three months, and to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C, to the 2nd respondent/complainant. When the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the , and accordingly, confirmed the conviction. However, the substantial sentence of imprisonment for three months awarded by the learned Magistrate was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of conviction and modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here with this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The Trial Court placed reliance upon the evidence of the complainant as PW1 and the documents marked as Exts. P1 to P7 for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The Appellate Court made a re-evaluation of the aforesaid evidence and found that the finding of conviction is not liable to be interfered with. On going through the case records and the impugned judgments of the courts below, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the by the courts below is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

4. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar [2025(6) KHC 250 SC]

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the limitations in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, held as follows:

“27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh (supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southem Sales & Services and Others v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error.

28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.”

Thus the law is well settled that High Courts should be loath in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, in the absence of perversity looming large from the evidence on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering from severe financial crisis, and hence he may be granted a period of twelve months for making payment of the compensation amount ordered by the courts below.

6. Having regard to the submission in the above regard, I deem it appropriate to grant a period of eight months to the petitioner to remit the compensation ordered by the courts below.

In the result, the petition is disposed of as follows:

The concurrent findings of conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the courts below and the modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, are hereby upheld. However, the petitioner is granted a period of eight months’ time from today to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/- before the Trial Court. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not