Revisional courts cannot disturb plausible concurrent findings of fact absent patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner (Selvi) and a co-accused (Mohanasundaram, a Branch Manager at SBI) were accused of cheating multiple persons between January and May 2009.

The prosecution alleged the accused induced PW1 and PW7 to part with approximately Rs. 30 lakhs by falsely claiming they had Rs. 30 crores in a bank account that required tax payments for release.

Sixteen separate final reports were filed under Section 219 Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tindivanam) convicted the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC on 05.04.2025.

The Appellate Court (I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam) confirmed the conviction on 29.08.2025 but ordered the sentences to run concurrently under Section 467(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioner filed these revision cases challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The court primarily applied Section 420 (cheating) and Section 415 (definition of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is reserved for patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or perversity.

The court cited Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 to define the contours of revision.

Deepak Gaba and others v. State of UP and others (2023) 3 SCC 423 to clarify that "fraudulent/dishonest inducement" is a sine qua non for an offense under Section 420 IPC.

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act regarding agreements against public policy.

The High Court observed that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a routine manner unless the lower court’s finding is grossly erroneous or lacks evidence.

Regarding the petitioner's argument on Section 23 of the Contract Act, the Court found that the inducement—claiming a need for funds to pay income tax to release a larger sum—did not constitute a contract against public policy but rather a calculated fraudulent representation.

On the merits, the Court found that PW1, PW7, and PW12 provided corroborative evidence showing that the petitioner and the Branch Manager (A2) deliberately deceived the witnesses by showing them fake computer records of a Rs. 30 crore balance.

Applying the rule from Deepak Gaba, the Court reasoned that since there was intentional inducement leading to wrongful loss, all ingredients of Section 420 IPC were satisfied.

The Court concluded that as long as the inferior court's findings are "plausible," the Revisional Court should not substitute its own view.

The Court affirmed the findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts, noting no perversity or illegality in their judgments.

The order for the sentences to run concurrently was maintained.