Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narasimhan, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26147/2016 vide judgment dated 06.08.2021. The conviction was confirmed by the LXVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.543/2021 dated 05.11.2024. The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.PC (filed u/s 438 r/w 442 BNSS) challenging both orders. The case arose from a cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant, Venugopala J., which was dishonoured. The petitioner contended that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt and that the loan was repaid. However, the courts below found that the petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque and failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. 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 failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The defence of loan repayment and signature denial was not supported by evidence. Held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference in revision. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 - Scope - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Held that the revision petition lacked merit and was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are perverse or illegal warranting interference in revision.
Final Decision
The criminal revision petition is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.26147/2016 dated 06.08.2021 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.543/2021 dated 05.11.2024 are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.PC
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 13
Criminal Revision Petition No.1652/2024
S.V. Bhat for petitioner; Channappa Erappa for respondent No.1; Venugopala J., party-in-person for respondent No.2
The State of Karnataka and Sri. Venugopala J.
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
Petitioner (accused) sought to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque issued to the complainant; he claimed the loan was repaid and the cheque was not for any debt.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the petitioner on 06.08.2021 in C.C.No.26147/2016; appellate court confirmed the conviction on 05.11.2024 in Crl.A.No.543/2021.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are perverse or illegal warranting interference in revision.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt and that the loan was repaid.
Respondents argued that the petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque and failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The accused admitted his signature on the cheque, raising a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and party-in-person respondent No.2.
This revision petition is filed by the accused praying this Court to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.26147/2016 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 06.08.2021 and judgment of confirmation passed in Crl.A.No.543/2021 dated 05.11.2024 on the file of the LXVII Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted by the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 06.08.2021 in C.C.No.26147/2016. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the LXVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 05.11.2024 in Crl.A.No.543/2021. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.PC.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC): 397, 401
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 438, 442
