Revisional Court Can’t Substitute Its Own Conclusion: Kerala High Court Dismisses Accused’s Petition In Cheque Bounce Case

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by an accused booked in a case registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another (2012) and Kishan Rao v. Shankargauda (2018), the Single Bench of Justice Johnson John stated, “It is well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, and the revisional court considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings and the revisional court cannot substitute its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence…”

Advocate Sheji P. Abraham represented the Petitioner while Advocate N.K. Sanath Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the accused and the complainant were colleagues for a long period in the military service, and after retirement, the accused issued cheques to the complainant towards payment of the amount due to the complainant in connection with a chitty transaction consequent to a complaint lodged before the Station House Officer, Sulthan Bathery Police Station, by the complainant against the accused. According to the complainant, the matter was settled, and accordingly, the accused issued the cheques in discharge of the amount due to the complainant in connection with the chitty transaction.

The complainant claimed that after the dishonour of the cheques, a registered lawyer's notice was issued simultaneously to the residential address and the address of the accused at his place of employment.

Arguments

It was the case of the revision petitioner that the finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court regarding the issuance of a statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the N.I Act by the complainant was based on no evidence.

It was pointed out by the complainant that the evidence of the postman would show that the notice was delivered to the wife of the accused.

Reasoning

The exhibits provided included the office copy of the statutory notice issued to the accused in connection with the dishonour of a cheque. The Bench noted that the same clearly showed that copies were marked in the official address of the accused also. The Bench also took note of the fact that the notice issued to the residential address of the accused was redirected to his place of work, and subsequently returned to the sender as undelivered. The postal track record showed that the postal consignment was delivered to the addressee.

The Bench explained that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only if there is any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order under challenge.

Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench found that there was no illegality, perversity or infirmity which necessitated the interference of the Court. The Bench thus dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Janardhanan.V. v. Viswanathan. P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:14825)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Sheji P. Abraham

Respondent: Advocate N.K. Sanath Kumar

Click here to read/download Order