Ushakumari vs State Of Kerala

Mary Joseph, J

This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) and orders of conviction and sentence passed successively by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Varkala (for short ‘the trial court’) and VIIth Additional Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the appellate court’) respectively in S.T.No.136/2010 and Crl.Appeal No.60/2014 .

The trial court has found the revision petitioner guilty and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. When the judgment of the trial court was assailed, the appellate court has confirmed the finding of guilt and modified the substantive sentence to till rising of the court. The direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and default sentence were maintained. The revision petitioner has come up in revision, challenging the judgments aforesaid.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner being in Jail serving the sentence, the revision petition deserves admission.

The Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)] has held that concurrent findings of trial court as well as appellate court, evenif erroneous, cannot be interfered with in revision unless a jurisdictional error is pointed out by the revision petitioner.

In the case on hand, this Court has gone through the judgment of the trial court and convinced that admittedly, the revision petitioner has issued a signed blank cheque to the complainant. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 NI Act would be applicable in the case and the onus is upon the revision petitioner to rebut it. It is pertinent to note that only a photograph was produced in the attempt of the revision petitioner to rebut the presumption. The attempt did not materialise and accordingly the trial court found her guilty and convicted and sentenced her. The appellate court on appreciation of evidence confirmed the finding, conviction and sentence. In the view of this Court the revision petition is devoid of merits and the judgments assailed are not liable to be interfered with.

Revision petition fails and is dismissed in limine..