1. The revision petitioner is the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act for short).

2. The trial court convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,70,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellate court, as per judgment dated 20.11.2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 111 of 2017, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

3. Heard Sri. T.N. Suresh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri. Boby M.M., the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that Exhibit P1 cheque is not supported by valid consideration and that the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to discharge the initial burden and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act. It is also argued that a proper appreciation of the evidence of DW1 and Exhibits D1 and D2 would show that there was no transaction between the accused and the complainant and the finding recorded by the trial court and the appellate court regarding the issuance of the cheque and its consideration are perverse and therefore, requires interference by this Court in revision.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction and issuance of the cheque by the accused towards payment of the balance amount due from the accused and his brother is sufficient to discharge the initial burden and that the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the entire evidence in a proper manner and there is no jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference in revision.

6. The averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint and the evidence of PW1 shows that he approached the accused and his brother to get employment in New Zealand. It is specifically alleged that the accused and his brother, Anil Kumar, were conducting a man power recruitment agency under the name and style ‘Reeta Management Services' and for arranging a job in New Zealand, they collected Rs.6.5 Lakhs as advance from the complainant promising to arrange the visa within 6 months. When the accused and his brother failed to arrange the visa, the complainant demanded back the money and then they repaid Rs.5,00,000/- and towards the balance amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs, the accused executed and issued Exhibit P1 cheque.

7. It is specifically stated in the chief affidavit of PW1 that the accused executed and issued Exhibit P1 cheque on 25.09.2015, while they were in the house of the accused. In view of the said evidence of PW1 and the averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint regarding the transaction, execution and issuance of Exhibit P1 cheque, I find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that when the brother of the accused was examined as DW1, initially he stated that when the complainant demanded security for the balance amount, his brother who is the accused herein handed over a signed blank cheque as security to the complainant and thereafter, he immediately corrected that he entrusted the cheque to the complainant and the appellate court has also taken note of the said evidence of DW1 in chief examination while recording a finding in favour of the complainant.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that it was DW1, the brother of the accused who conducted the recruitment agency, and the accused has no connection with the said agency and even if the complainant has paid any amount to DW1, the accused has no liability to return the said amount. But, the specific case of the complainant is that the recruitment agency was conducted by the accused and his brother and they together received Rs.6.5 Lakhs as advance for arranging a visa and subsequently, when they failed to arrange the visa, they repaid Rs.5,00,000/- and issued Exhibit P1 cheque for Rs. 1.5 Lakhs towards the balance amount. In view of the definition of the term ‘consideration’ in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, I find that the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard is not legally sustainable.

9. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only when the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous or there is non compliance of the provisions of law or finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452], it was held that revisional power is a type of supervisory jurisdiction meant to rectify injustices and it is not the same as the appellate jurisdiction.

10. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.