Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision petition was filed by the accused-petitioner, Sri R. Rajappa, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01-07-2016 passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.26605/2014, and the appellate judgment dated 01-09-2017 passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.786/2016, both convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant-respondent, Sri K. Ashok Rai, alleged that the petitioner had borrowed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and issued a cheque for the same amount, which was dishonoured upon presentation. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The petitioner contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act was rebutted. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt - The accused was convicted for dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan. The courts below held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt stood unrebutted. The revision petition challenging the concurrent findings was dismissed as no perversity or illegality was found. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 - Scope of Interference - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of the findings. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no such infirmity. (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 High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Law Points
- Presumption of legally enforceable debt under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Rebuttal of presumption by accused
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered in revision
