Case Note & Summary
The criminal revision petition was filed by the accused-petitioner challenging the judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.A.No.13/2012, which confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2011 passed by the II JMFC Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.1592/2009. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The case arose from a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.1,28,000/- towards discharge of a debt, which was dishonoured on presentation. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the petitioner argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption under Section 139 - The complainant proved that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and did not warrant interference in revision. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope - Section 397(1) r/w 401 - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. The concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The criminal revision petition is dismissed. The judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.A.No.13/2012, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2011 passed by the II JMFC Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.1592/2009, is upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act
- Burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption
- Validity of notice under Section 138 NI Act
- Concurrent findings of fact not lightly interfered in revision
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (11) 52
Deepak S Kulkarni, B V Somapur
Gajanan S/o Kallappa Kadolkar
Appasaheb Siddamallappa Kaveri
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of debt.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,28,000/- with default sentence. Appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is sustainable on the evidence on record.
Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, operates in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused must rebut this presumption with credible evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the conviction under Section 138 is sustainable. The revisional court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is patent illegality or perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.A.No.13/2012 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.1592/2009.
The concurrent findings of the courts below are based on evidence and the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed before the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, which convicted the petitioner on 09.09.2011. The petitioner appealed to the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who confirmed the conviction on 31.10.2012. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was heard and reserved for orders on 29.10.2022 and pronounced on 18.11.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397(1), 401
