Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Dhondiba Nagoba Ladke, the original accused, challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, a bank, had granted a loan of Rs.81,000 to the accused in 1991 for starting a poultry farm. The accused, along with his partner Balwantrao Deshmukh, mortgaged their lands as security. The loan was repayable in six installments at 14% interest per annum, but the accused failed to repay. Upon persistent demand, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,20,000 on 15.5.1999. On 18.5.1999, he undertook to realize the amount by selling his house within one month. After waiting for one month, the bank presented the cheque for encashment, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The bank issued a statutory notice and filed a complaint. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani, convicted the accused in Regular Criminal Case No.642/2003, sentencing him to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, with a default sentence of 15 days. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, Parbhani, in Criminal Appeal No.24/2006, which was dismissed on 30.10.2007. The accused then filed the present revision application. The High Court heard the matter and considered the concurrent findings of fact. The court noted that the accused had not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability. The court found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the judgments of the lower courts. Consequently, the revision application 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.1,20,000 towards repayment of a loan. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138, which was upheld by the appellate court. In revision, the High Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability, was not rebutted by the accused. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not warrant interference. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 - The High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact as the accused failed to show any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the judgments of the courts below. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on concurrent findings of fact, warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani in Regular Criminal Case No.642/2003, as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.24/2006, are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision unless perverse
- Section 138 NI Act ingredients
