High Court of Karnataka Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case — Accused Failed to Rebut Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With in Revision Under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 23:10:53

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The revision petitioner, D.B. Jatti, was convicted by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No. 17696/2013 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of a cheque issued to the respondent, Naraindas Bodaram. The trial court sentenced him to pay a fine, and in default, simple imprisonment. The conviction was confirmed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 1693/2017. The revision petitioner challenged both judgments before the High Court of Karnataka. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed a loan and issued a cheque which was dishonoured. The accused denied the debt and claimed the cheque was given as security. The trial court and appellate court both found that the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The High Court, in revision, heard the counsel for the petitioner and noted that the respondent was absent. The court examined the concurrent findings and found no perversity, illegality, or error of law. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 had not been rebutted by the accused. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt - Section 139 - The accused was convicted for dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan. The trial court and appellate court concurrently held that the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139. The High Court in revision found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition. (Paras 1-5)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 read with 401 - Scope of Interference - The High Court held that in a revision petition, it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality, perversity, or error of law. The court found no such grounds and dismissed the petition. (Para 5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the presumption of a legally enforceable debt, was sustainable when the accused failed to rebut the presumption.

Final Decision

The revision petition is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court are upheld.

Law Points

Presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
1881
Rebuttal of presumption by accused
Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:26829

CRL.RP No. 932 of 2021

2024-07-11

V Srishananda

NC: 2024:KHC:26829

Chethan A C for petitioner, Narasimhan S for respondent

D.B. Jatti

Naraindas Bodaram

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was convicted for dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan; he challenged the concurrent findings of guilt.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the petitioner in C.C. No. 17696/2013 on 07.11.2017; appellate court confirmed the conviction in Crl.A. No. 1693/2017 on 31.05.2021.

Issues

Whether the presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act was rebutted by the accused. Whether the concurrent findings of fact suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the cheque was given as security and not towards any legally enforceable debt. Respondent contended that the loan was advanced and the cheque was issued towards repayment, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption.

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, remains unless rebutted by the accused. In this case, the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse or illegal. Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere in revision.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Sri.Chethan A. C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC NO.17696/2013 dated 07.11.2017 on the file of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1693/2017 dated 31.05.2021 on the file of LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 70) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, which led to trial in C.C. No. 17696/2013. The trial court convicted the accused on 07.11.2017. The accused appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction on 31.05.2021. The accused then filed the present revision petition before the High Court.