The High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a clear indication of perversity or jurisdictional error.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Sulthan Bathery, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhod II), Kalpetta, in ST No.3758/2003 and Crl.Appeal No.139/2005 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The case against the petitioner is that a cheque for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, which she executed and issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, which she owed the de facto complainant/2nd respondent, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and that the petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount despite statutory notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Before the Trial Court, the 2nd respondent tendered evidence as PW1 and brought on record 6 documents as Exts.P1 to P6. From the part of the petitioner, she tendered evidence as DW1 and marked 3 documents as Exts D1 to D3. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully established the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . Accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three months with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

4. The main defence taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court was that a false case has been foisted against her by the complainant by misusing a cheque which was entrusted with the complainant by her husband as a security in connection with a financial transaction during the year 1998-1999. As regards the above contention, the Trial Court observed that there was absolutely nothing to prove the same except her interested oral testimony as DW1. Adverting to the remaining evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the complainant has successfully established the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner. The Appellate Court made a re-evaluation of the aforesaid offence and found that there was absolutely no reason to take a different view.

5. Having regard to the above concurrent findings on facts of the courts below, I am of the view that this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers, cannot displace the aforesaid findings.

6. 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 pres