P. J. JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No.594/92 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, who was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short the NI act, has filed this revision petition. The learned Magistrate finding him guilty of the offence convicted him there under sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the appeal preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, conviction was confirmed but sentence modified to the extent of setting aside the default term of simple imprisonment awarded for non payment of the compensation ordered. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused has come up in this revision impeaching its legality, propriety and correctness.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and also the learned public prosecutor.

(3.) THE scope and ambit of exercise by revisional authority is to set right and correct the infirmity and illegality procedural and otherwise in the orders of the inferior courts. But every infirmity is not liable to be corrected but only such of them which is of such a nature amounting to injustice. Supervisory jurisdiction conferred by revision to correct and set right the mistakes of the infe rior courts has to be exercised within the parameters permitted by law and in such exercise reappreciation of the evidence is permissible only in a case where it is brought home that the finding entered by the inferior courts is so perverse and not in a case where another view different from that court on the materials is also possible. Both the courts below, trial court as well as appellate court, have found no merit in the defence projected by the accused and in that circum- stance, unless the revisional authority is satisfied that finding is perverse on the materials produced even if a different view is permissible, it will be reluctant to interfere with the conclusion formed by the inferior courts.