While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction, High Court Cannot Interfere With Magistrate’s Order Unless Perverse Or Unreasonable: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has observed that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court shall not interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate unless the same is perverse or unreasonable in nature.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] and said, “… the Apex Court held that the High Court in 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.”
The Bench was deciding a case wherein it refused to interfere in the revision petitions with the concurrent findings of conviction.
Advocate Sanil Jose appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Johnson P. John appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the revision petitions were filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the revision petitioner was the accused. The accused was challenging the judgments of the Additional Sessions Judge-II (Special), Kottayam.
The complaints were filed on the allegation that cheques for Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- issued by the accused for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt got dishonoured for want of funds. Even after the issuance of legal notice, the amount was not paid as a result of which the cognizance was taken and then the Trial Court found that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel for both parties noted, “… nothing substantiated in these revision petitions to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction as well as the modified sentence of imprisonment to the least minimum possible, in any manner. … In the result, these revision petitions fails and are accordingly dismissed.”
The Court granted three months of time to the accused to pay the fine and undergo the sentence.
“… the revision petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the trial court on 25.08.2023 to undergo the modified sentence and to pay the fine. If the revision petitioner/accused fails to surrender, as directed, the trial court shall execute the sentence as per law, without fail. The execution of sentence stands deferred till 24.08.2023”, directed the Court.
The Court further said that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II shall release Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the complainant without much delay and that the payment of compensation as ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge-II be after reducing the said amount and Rs. 50,000/- paid to the complainant directly.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision pleas.
Cause Title- Binu Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:28954)
