Revisional courts will not disturb concurrent convictions absent patent illegality or perversity.

The respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment and payment of ₹5,00,000 as compensation, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default.

The petitioner’s appeal, in which he alleged that cheques handed to a co-trustee had been misused and denied any legally enforceable debt, was dismissed; the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

In the revision, the High Court had conditionally suspended the sentence on the petitioner’s depositing ₹2,50,000, but he failed to do so despite an extension of time.

The suspension was vacated, and a non-bailable warrant was issued but remained unexecuted.

1. Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act disclosed a patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the petitioner’s failure to comply with the condition for suspension of sentence affected the disposition of the revision.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminalises the dishonour of a cheque when its statutory requirements are satisfied.

The Court applied the principle that revisional jurisdiction is limited: the High Court is not to reappreciate the evidence as if exercising appellate jurisdiction, and interference with concurrent findings is warranted only where patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity is shown.

No precedent was cited.

The courts below had considered the petitioner’s defence that the cheques were misused and that no legally enforceable debt existed, and had concurrently found him guilty.

The petitioner did not demonstrate patent illegality or perversity sufficient to justify revisional interference.

The Court also noted that he had failed to deposit the required ₹2,50,000 despite being granted additional time, resulting in the vacation of the suspension order; the Magistrate’s report confirmed that the amount remained unpaid and the warrant had not been executed.

It directed the Judicial Magistrate to take immediate steps in accordance with law to secure the petitioner to serve the sentence and to recover any outstanding compensation.