The revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless gross miscarriage of justice is evident, maintaining the integrity of lower court findings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1437 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2012 IN Crl.A NO.101 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2011 IN ST NO.1349 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNI REVISION PETITIONER:

T.R.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR AGED 47 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, THADATHIL HOUSE, VECHUCHIRA, KUNNAM, CHENNACKAL RANNI BY ADV SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 ELSY RAJU W/O RAJU, SOORYA SAI, MUTTAM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV SHRI.BIJU ABRAHAM ADV. ALEX M THOMBRA, SR. PP.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER This revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’). The above appeal was preferred, challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T.No.1349 of

2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ranny.

2. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.

3. The appellate court, as per the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal an conviction and sentence is confirmed.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The contentions raised before me are also urging for re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. 5. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [ (1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ...”

6. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [ (2015) 3 SCC 123