Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Narayana Mudaliyar @ Narayana Raju, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in two separate cases (C.C.No.6087/2013 and C.C.No.21935/2012) for dishonour of cheques issued to the respondent, The Bangalore City Co-operative Bank Ltd. The trial court convicted him, and the appellate court (LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) confirmed the conviction in Criminal Appeal Nos.523/2016 and 524/2016. The petitioner filed two criminal revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the petitioner had not led any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheques were issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The courts below had concurrently found that the petitioner failed to prove that the cheques were not for a legally enforceable debt. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, which was not the case. Accordingly, both revision petitions were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption under Section 139 - The court considered whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and thus no interference was warranted in revision. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope of interference - The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate court. Concurrent findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such infirmity in the present case. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on concurrent findings of fact, warrants interference in revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 NI Act
- Burden of proof on accused to rebut presumption
- Standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision unless perverse
