The Kerala High Court elucidated that Courts in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible
Brief Facts of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the accused- petitioner on the allegations that cheques issued by the accused for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt got dishonored for want of funds. No amount was paid even after the issuance of a legal notice and the accused was sentenced for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court. After the dismissal of the appeal by the accused in the Appellate Court, it was challenged in the High Court via Revision Petition.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was contended by the accused/revision petitioner’s counsel that the evidence given by DW1 was not properly appreciated and therefore the impugned order required reconsideration.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The contentions of the Petitioner were countered by the complainant’s counsel with the argument that appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence was within the domain of the trial court and appellate court and the same were done properly and thereby the concurrent finding of conviction and modified sentence was imposed permitting the accused to pay the amount to protect the interest of the complainant.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that, if there is non-consideration of any relevant materials, that would go to the root of the matter or any fundamental violation of the principle of law, only then can the power of revision would be made available. Moreover, the significance of following the law regarding presumptions was emphasized upon.
Decision of the Court:
The revision petitions by the accused were declared to have failed and were accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Binu Mathew vs State of Kerala & Joby Joseph
Case No.: Criminal Revision Petition No. 474 Of 2022
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Advocates for Petitioner: Advocate Sanil Jose
Advocates for Respondent: Advocate Sri. Johnson P.John
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
V
Share this Document :Picture Source :
