The court upheld the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, confirming the conviction while relaxing the sentence of imprisonment.

K.BABU, J.

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

Criminal.R.P No.222 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 20.11.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.515 of 2024 passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, in judgment dated 27.11.2024 in S.T No.55 of 2022.

2. Heard both sides.

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 simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,940/-.

4. Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner/accused executed Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant duly issued statutory notices to the accused; however, the said notices were returned unclaimed.

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. He stated that the accused requested him to lend Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of three months. The complainant paid the amount to the accused as requested. The accused did not repay the money as promised. 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 accused, the complainant along with some others had purchased land in 2014. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the transaction and the impugned cheque is that signed blank cheque entrusted with the complainant as a security for the afore transaction. Though the property was sold in the year 2018, the complainant did not hand over the cheque of the accused and the same was misappropriated by him. 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 material facts are wholly ignored or w