The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the revisional jurisdiction does not allow interference unless findings are grossly erroneous.

ORDER

The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 03.02.2024 in Crl.Appeal No.175 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, in the common judgment dated 18.07.2022 in STC Nos.1352 & 1353 of 2015.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The revision petitioners are the accused. They have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,76,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioners/accused executed two cheques for Rs.94,000/- each. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment. They were dishonoured and returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient”. Despite receipt of the statutory notices, the revision petitioners failed to pay the amounts covered by the cheques.

5. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The revision petitioners appeared on summons. They 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, in discharge of the liability arising out of the chitty transaction, the accused issued Exts.P1 and P8 cheques, signed by accused No. 2, in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheques for encashment, the same were dishonoured stating the reason “funds insufficient”. The plea of the accused during the trial was that Exts.P1 and P8 cheques were stolen by the complainant from their office. The complainant has proved the execution of Exts.P1 & P8 cheques. 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 where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide:Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123] , Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)]}.

9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction requires no interference, but the sentence imposed is exorbitant. Therefore, the sentence of imprison