Revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent findings in the absence of perversity; courts should uphold conviction for cheque dishonor.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Muvattupuzha and the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, in CC No.20/2008 and Crl.Appeal No.468/2014 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 petition.

2. The prosecution case relates to the dishonour of a cheque of Rs.31,225/- executed and issued by the petitioner/accused to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and the failure of the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount despite the receipt of statutory notice. Before the Trial Court, the authorised representative of the complainant was examined as PW1, and 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. The accused did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the complainant has successfully established the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.31,225/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation of the amount. A default clause of Simple Imprisonment for 15 days was also stipulated by the Trial Court. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. 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, the learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 and 4 representing the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. On going through the impugned judgments of the courts below as well as the case records, I am of the view that there is absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings on facts of the courts below that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

5. 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.

6. As far as the sentence portion of the judgments rendered by the courts below is concerned, it is seen that a perfectly reasonable and proper sentence, which is commensurate with the gravity of the offence committ