SHAJU N I Vs. T K PAULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, 'the N.I. Act', is challenged in this revision. Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the 'accused' was prosecuted for the above offence on a complaint filed by the 1st Respondent. The learned Magistrate, after trial, negativing his plea of not guilty found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default term of simple imprisonment for one month more. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is thus: The accused towards discharge of a liability under a loan availed, issued Ext. P-1 cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 promising its encashment on presentation in due course. Statutory notice issued intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the sum thereunder was acknowledged but not responded with payment. Complainant thereupon laid a complaint to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exts. P-1 to P-6 to prove his case. The accused questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and also earlier when the complainant as P.W. 1 was subjected to cross-examination, setforth a defense case that two blank signed cheques had been obtained from him by a finance company at the time when he had availed financial assistance to purchase a motor vehicle on the security of that vehicle. One of those two cheques obtained by that company after making fraudulent entries showing the complainant as the drawee at the instance of that company, after its presentation and dishonour, according to the accused, has been made use of for filing the present complaint on false and baseless allegations. To support the defense so canvassed, the accused examined six witnesses including himself as D.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exts. D-1 to D-5. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the materials tendered and hearing the counsel on both sides, repelling the defense case canvassed found merit in the case of the complainant and accepted it to hold the accused guilty of the offence negativing his defense as unacceptable. Accused was thereupon convicted and sentenced for the offence as indicated above, which was confirmed without modification in appeal also.

(3.) The challenges raised against the conviction of the accused concurrently held by the two inferior Courts, no doubt, has to be appreciated within the narrow limits of revisional jurisdiction and in the absence of any glaring serious infirmity disclosing that such conviction will amount to miscarriage of justice, no interference thereof is permissible. Revision is a paternal jurisdiction vested with a superior forum to correct and rectify the orders of the inferior Courts, provided, such order suffers from serious infirmities likely to cause miscarriage of justice. Normally in revision, a reappreciation of evidence is impermissible unless it is shown that the findings arrived by the inferior Courts could not have been formed on the materials placed or it is so perverse and unacceptable. A different view is possible than what was formed by the inferior Court on the materials is not sufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction and supplement the view of the revisional Court if that view was also possible on the materials. However, after going through the orders/judgments of the inferior Courts challenged in the revision with reference to the submissions made by the counsel and perusing the records of the case, if the revisional Court is satisfied that the materials produced had been misconstrued and misappreciated and the conclusion arrived by the inferior Courts, even if made concurrently, is patently erroneous and legally unsustainable, it has to exercise its jurisdiction to pass such orders which should have been rendered by the inferior Court to avoid miscarriage of justice.