Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from him and issued a cheque dated 10.04.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, Begur Road Branch, Bengaluru, towards repayment. The cheque was presented but dishonoured with the endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. A legal notice was issued, but the accused failed to pay the amount, leading to the filing of a complaint. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. The accused then filed the present revision petition. The main legal issue was whether the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt stood rebutted by the accused. The accused argued that the cheque was given as security for a hand loan and not for a legally enforceable debt. However, the High Court noted that the accused did not examine himself or any witness to support his defence. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it by leading evidence or through cross-examination. The court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Consequently, 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 Rs. 1,50,000/- towards repayment of a loan. The cheque was dishonoured. The accused contended that the cheque was given as security for a hand loan and not for a legally enforceable debt. The trial court and appellate court convicted the accused. The High Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act operates in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut the same by leading evidence or cross-examination. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-5)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Rebuttal of Presumption - Section 139 - The accused must raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. Mere denial or suggestion that the cheque was given as security is insufficient. The accused did not examine himself or any witness to support his defence. The High Court affirmed that the accused failed to rebut the presumption. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the petitioner had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 649/2017 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is 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
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 3
Sri Praveen C, Sri B C Rajanna
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 sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, and to acquit the petitioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of N.I. Act; he challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the petitioner on 03.04.2017 in C.C. No. 8433/2016; appellate court affirmed the conviction on 20.09.2017 in Crl.A. No. 649/2017.
Issues
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted by the accused?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below suffer from perversity or illegality?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the cheque was given as security for a hand loan and not for a legally enforceable debt, and that the complainant failed to prove the debt.
Respondent argued that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act operates in his favour and the accused failed to rebut it.
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt is a rebuttable presumption. The accused must lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses to raise a probable defence. Mere denial or suggestion that the cheque was given as security is insufficient to rebut the presumption. In this case, the accused failed to examine himself or any witness, and thus the presumption stood unrebutted, justifying the conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 649/2017 by LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the judgment of conviction of petitioner dated 03.04.2017 passed in C.C. No. 8433/2016 by the XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been affirmed.
The petitioner – accused approached the respondent – complainant and borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and towards repayment of the said loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 10.04.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, Begur Road Branch, Bengaluru.
The accused has not examined himself as a witness nor examined any other witness to support his defence. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was tried as C.C. No. 8433/2016 by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The trial court convicted the petitioner on 03.04.2017. The petitioner appealed to the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No. 649/2017, which was dismissed on 20.09.2017, affirming the conviction. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 397, 401
