High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Against Acquittal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — No Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact. Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against acquittal under Section 138 of N.I. Act dismissed as no illegality or perversity found in appellate court's judgment.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 13:49:18

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Tushar S/o Vijaya Kumar Mehta, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Criminal Appeal No.90/2011. The Sessions Court had reversed the conviction of the respondent, Raju @ Nagaraj S/o Narayan Buchanalli, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) and acquitted him. The petitioner had originally prosecuted the respondent in C.C. No.495/2008 before the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gulbarga, where the Magistrate convicted the accused. The respondent appealed, and the Sessions Judge acquitted him. The petitioner then filed this revision. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. and held that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law. The court found that the Sessions Judge's judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any such infirmity. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Revisional Powers - The High Court in revision cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law. The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are manifestly perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 2-4)

B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Acquittal - The appellate court's judgment acquitting the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act was based on appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.A. No.90/2011.

Law Points

Revision against acquittal
Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Interference only in case of illegality or perversity
Concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC-K:444

CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2018

2024-01-10

Rajendra Badamikar

NC: 2024:KHC-K:444

Sri Rajkumar A. Korwar (for petitioner), Sri S.B. Hangarki (for respondent)

Tushar S/o Vijaya Kumar Mehta

Raju @ Nagaraj S/o Narayan Buchanalli

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petition against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of the appellate court's judgment of acquittal and confirmation of the trial court's conviction order.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was aggrieved by the Sessions Court's judgment acquitting the respondent in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gulbarga) convicted the accused in C.C. No.495/2008. The appellate court (I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi) acquitted the accused in Crl.A. No.90/2011.

Issues

Whether the High Court in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the appellate court's judgment was erroneous and deserved to be set aside. Respondent supported the appellate court's judgment and argued that no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

The revisional court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, perversity, or error of law. The appellate court's judgment acquitting the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any such infirmity.

Judgment Excerpts

This revision is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.A.No.90/2011. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: ...

Procedural History

The respondent was prosecuted by the petitioner in C.C. No.495/2008 before the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gulbarga, for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Magistrate convicted the accused. The accused appealed to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.A. No.90/2011, who acquitted the accused. The petitioner then filed this revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.