1. The common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kozhikode, in Crl.A.Nos.426 & 427/2018, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(in short, ‘NI Act’) upon the petitioner, are under challenge in these revision petitions. Crl.R.P.No.97/2020 relates to the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.25,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have issued to the complainant/first respondent. Crl.R.P.No.98/2020 is in connection with the dishonour of a cheque for Rs.49,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have issued to the complainant/first respondent. In the above cases, which were numbered as C.C.Nos.805 & 806/2017, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.49,000/-, respectively. Default clauses for simple imprisonment for one month each were also provided for non-payment of the fine. Though the petitioner challenged the verdicts in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kozhikode, who considered the appeals, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with these revision petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The Trial Court relied on the oral testimony of PW1 and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P11 for arriving at the finding that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The above said evidence was subjected to detailed scrutiny in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, it was observed by the Appellate Court that there was absolutely no reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate on an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence. On going through the evidence on record as well as the reasoning in the impugned judgments of the courts below, I am of the view that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be invoked to displace the above findings.

4. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar [2025(6) KHC 250 SC] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the limitations in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, held as follows:

                   “27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh (supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southem Sales & Services and Others v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error.

                  28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.”

                  Thus the law is well settled that High Courts should be loath in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, in the absence of perversity looming large from the evidence on record.

5. In the light of the discussions aforesaid, it is hereby held that the findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below are not liable to be interfered with in these revision petitions. However, as regards the sentence awarded, it is highly necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner to avoid prison term, if he is ready to make payment of the cheque amount to the complainant/first respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reasonable period of time may be given to the petitioner to make payment of the fine imposed by the courts below, since the petitioner is under severe financial constraints. Having regard to the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant a period of six months time for the petitioner to remit the fine amount imposed by the courts below.

                  In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed in part as follows:

                  (i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 138 of the NI Act, are hereby confirmed.

                  (ii) The sentence awarded by the courts below stand modified and altered by excluding the simple imprisonment for one month each awarded in these cases.

                  (iii) It is made clear that the fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) imposed in C.C.No.805/2017 and the fine of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) imposed in C.C.No.806/2017, are upheld, subject to the modification that the petitioner is having the option to remit the above fine amount within a period of six months from today.

                  (iv) In default of payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period of six months as directed in this order, the default term of simple imprisonment for one month each provided in the sentence awarded by the courts below will have to be undergone by the petitioner.

                  (v) The directions of the courts below to pay the fine amount to the complainant/first respondent under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.PC. are retained as such.

                  The Registry shall transmit the case records to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for enforcement of the sentence awarded upon the petitioner.