High Courts should not interfere with lower court findings in the absence of evidential perversity.

ORDER

The defacto complainant / PW2 in C.C.No.125 of 1996 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, has filed this revision petition challenging the common judgment rendered by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused in the aforesaid case by the Trial Court and ordering their acquittal.

2. The allegation against the accused was that they collected money from the defacto complainant, offering a visa for employment abroad, and failed to arrange the visa as promised. It is the further grievance of the defacto complainant that the amount collected from him was not returned by the accused. Thus the criminal prosecution was launched against the accused in Crime No.189 of 1993 of Panur Police Station, for the commission of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC .

3. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of ten witnesses as PWs 1 to 10, and the marking of ten documents as Exts.P1 to P10, and also after taking note of two defence documents brought on record as Exts.D1 and D2, the learned Magistrate convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of the offence underSection 420IPC, and sentenced them to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.50,000/- with a default clause of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The aforesaid verdict was challenged by accused Nos.1 and 2 by filing Crl.A.Nos.479 & 481 of 1998 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. As per the common judgment rendered in the aforesaid appeals on 16.12.2004, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal that the defacto complainant / PW1 had preferred this revision before this Court.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 09.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported ‘no instructions’. Accordingly, notice was issued to the revision petitioner from the Registry intimating him the adjournment of the case to this day and also informing him that the case will be decided in his absence, if there is no representation on the adjourned posting day. The aforesaid notice issued to the petitioner has been returned with the endorsement ‘absent’.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Appellate Court made a detailed evaluation of the evidence adduced by PWs 1, 2 and 6, whose money was allegedly siphoned off by the accused offering visa for employment abroad, and found that the nature of the issue involved in the case was of civil nature. The learned Sessions Judge observed in the impugned judgment that it was a bilateral contract between the parties in connection with the assurance made by the accused to arrange visa for PWs 1, 2 and 6. According to the Appellate Court, for the violation of a contractual obligation in the above regard, a criminal offence of cheating is not sustainable. On going through the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court, it is seen that the evidence tendered by PWs 1, 2 and 6 with regard to the transactions with the accused has been subjected to detailed ratiocination by the learned Sessions Judge before arriving at the finding that the criminal liability for the offence under Section 420 IPC could not be fastened in a case like this. According to the Appellate Court, the prosecution failed to establish that right from the very beginning, when the accused entered into negotiations with the defacto complainant and others, they were having the intention to cheat the aggrieved persons. There is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or error in the afor