IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2074 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CRA.96/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ST.531/2005 of ADDL. MUNSIFF & JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA . .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- K.K.OUSEPPUKUTTY, S/O.KURIYAKOSE, KOLADYVEEDU, ARANATTUKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EDISON, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, THOMMANA HOUSE, PUTHUKAVU DESOM, P.O.PERAMBRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680689. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.2074 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act', concurrently by the two inferior courts. Negativing his plea of not guilty, on his conviction, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant, with default term of simple imprisonment for two months more. In appeal, affirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge modified and reduced the substantive term of imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the court retaining the compensation awarded with the default term as fixed by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused did not receive the Crl.R.P.No.2074/2011 2 advocate notice and in fact, it was returned as unclaimed within two days after sending of such notice and that itself would indicate that foul play occurred over the issue of notice, is the submission of the counsel. The accused has no transaction whatsoever with the complainant and the complaint has been filed setting forth false allegations, is the further submission of the counsel. Lastly, it is also submitted that the accused did not get proper legal assistance to defend the prosecution launched against him on the basis of Ext.P1 cheque, the execution of which was disputed by him. 3. Going through the judgments of the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I am unable to accept any of the challenges canvassed by the counsel to assail the conviction entered against the accused concurrently by the two courts. The learned Magistrate has stated in his judgment that there was no challenge from the accused over the execution of the cheque nor of the transaction with the complainant. In the cross examination of the power of attorney holder of the complainant examined on his behalf no challenge was made that Crl.R.P.No.2074/2011 3 the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability. When such be the case, challenge against the finding of guilt entered by the two inferior courts concurrently in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, needless to point out, will not survive for consideration. Not only that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot even re-appreciate the evidence unless it is shown that the finding entered by the inferior courts is perverse. Even if the materials are capable of giving rise to two views and the view that could be formed by this Court on such materials is different from that taken by the court below, still, the view of that court could not be supplemented if that was also possible on the records of the case. When such be the interdictions placed over the revisional court, in examining the propriety, legality and correctness of the orders of the inferior courts and nothing has been brought out to show that the finding of guilt entered against the petitioner suffers from any infirmity, to exercise the revisional jurisdiction, I find the challenges raised as aforesaid have no merit at all. Conviction of the accused, it is seen, is supported by unimpeachable legal evidence. So far as the sentence imposed against the accused, it is seen, maximum Crl.R.P.No.2074/2011 4 leniency has been shown by the learned Sessions Judge in reducing the substantive term of imprisonment modified by the learned Magistrate to one day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation awarded with the default term. So much so, sentence also does not call for any modification. Revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.2074/2011 5