Revisional court upholds Sec.138 NI Act conviction unless lower court findings perverse or unreasonable; presumption under Sec.139 unrebutted.

ORDER

The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 01.12.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.370 of 2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in the judgment dated 10.07.2024 in C.C.No.11 of 2023.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The revision petitioner is the accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,53,408/-.

4. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner/accused executed a cheque for Rs.3,00,000-. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured and returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient”. Despite receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque.

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 issued Ext.P1 cheque for a valid consideration. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured stating the reason “funds insufficient”. 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 and sentence 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 and sentence require no interference. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the fine amount within eight months.

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the re