Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a complaint filed by the respondent (Smt. Y.C. Manju) against the revision petitioner (Sunil Yadav) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,000 from her and issued a cheque for the same amount, which was dishonoured upon presentation. After issuing a legal notice, the complainant filed a complaint before the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (C.C.No.16747/2017). The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.7,60,000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine, Rs.10,000 was to be defrayed to the State exchequer. The accused appealed before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Crl.A.No.1748/2018), which confirmed the conviction. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the revision petitioner's counsel and noted that the respondent's counsel was absent. The court examined the factual matrix and the concurrent findings of the courts below. The accused had taken a defence that the cheque was given as security for a loan taken by his brother, but the trial court and appellate court found that the complainant had proved the loan and the issuance of the cheque. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Since the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse, the revision petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the accused had not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The judgment was pronounced on 7th February 2025.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards repayment of a loan advanced to the accused. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 3-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 - Scope - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sustainable and whether the revisional court can reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- Legally enforceable debt
- Reappreciation of evidence in revision
