High Courts, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts unless there is clear evidence of perversity or jurisdictional error.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in S.T No.15/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nadapuram. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo imprisonment till the rising of Court, and to pay fine Rs.3,68,00,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months. In the appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Court, Vatakara, the aforesaid conviction was confirmed. While retaining the sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court, the Appellate Court reduced the fine amount to Rs.2,62,66,000/-. The aforesaid verdicts of the Courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The case relates to the dishonour of three cheques issued by the petitioner to the first respondent, and the non-payment of the cheque amount, despite the receipt of statutory notice. The liability in connection with the aforesaid cheques is said to have arisen in a transaction between the father of the complainant/first respondent and the petitioner towards the agreement for sale of landed property. Since the transaction failed, the petitioner is said to have undertaken to repay the advance amount received with interest. The cheques involved in this case are said to have been issued to the complainant towards the repayment of a portion of the above advance amount, which the petitioner is said to have received from the father of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the amount paid by his father to the petitioner was actually advanced by him out of his earnings while working abroad.

4. Before the Trial Court, the complainant and two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3, and nine documents were marked in evidence as Exts.P1 to P9. From the part of the petitioner, one witness was examined as DW1, and five documents were marked as ExtS.D1 to D5.

5. The petitioner/accused did not deny the signatures affixed by him in Exts.P1 to P3 cheques. However, his contention is that the above said cheques were actually issued by him as signed blank cheques in connection with some other transactions, and that they were misused and manipulated by the complainant for the institution of the complaint against him. He further contended that the complainant is not entitled to initiate criminal prosecution against him in connection with the cheques said to have been issued to clear the liability incurred with the father of the complainant. Despite raising all available objections against the criminal prosecution launched by the complainant against him, the petitioner did not dare to enter the witness box and tender evidence before the Trial Court, in support of his contentions. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court made a detailed ratiocination of the evidence on record and found that the complainant successfully established the commission of the offence by the accused. The contention of the petitioner about the incompetence of the complainant to institute the complaint, has been rightly repelled by the courts below on the basis of the finding that the evidence on record clearly brought out the advancement of money by the complainant in the transaction between his father and the petitioner, and the issuance of the cheques by the petitioner to the complainant towards the discharge of the aforesaid liability. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below.

6. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar [2025(6) KHC

250 SC] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the l