Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner (accused) was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan of Rs.2,00,000. The appellate court confirmed the conviction. The accused filed a revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the courts below had concurrently found that the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal, and no such ground was made out. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption under Section 139 - The accused issued a cheque for repayment of a loan; the cheque was dishonoured. The trial court and appellate court concurrently held that the complainant proved the debt and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. The High Court in revision declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, as the accused did not raise any substantial question of law or demonstrate perversity. (Paras 2-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warrant interference in revision jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.02.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.218/2016 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara in C.C.No.278/2016, is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 NI Act
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered in revision
- Burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption
Case Details
Sri Praveenkumar K S, Sri A Lourdu Mariyappa
Sri A M Harish Gowda @ A M Harisha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court
Filing Reason
The accused was convicted for dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan of Rs.2,00,000
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused in C.C.No.278/2016 on 26.10.2016; appellate court dismissed the appeal in Crl.A.No.218/2016 on 02.02.2021
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 NI Act warrant interference in revision jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued for setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
In a revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or illegal. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act operates in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut it. In this case, the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and the courts below properly appreciated the evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar K.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel for the respondent.
Accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('Act' for short) in C.C.No.278/2016, dated 26.10.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, K.R. Nagar, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.218/2016, on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, has preferred the present revision petition.
Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by the respondent under Section 200 of Negotiable Instruments Act contending that on 25.03.2015, accused for his legal necessities borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same within a short period of time and towards the repayment, issued a cheque bearing No.048182 in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Navanagara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., K.R. Nagar Branch, dated 29.04.2015, which on presentation came to be dishonoured.
Procedural History
The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which led to trial in C.C.No.278/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara. The trial court convicted the accused on 26.10.2016. The accused appealed in Crl.A.No.218/2016 before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, which dismissed the appeal on 02.02.2021. The accused then filed the present revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139, 200
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
