Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused Nos.1 and 2, were convicted by the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru in C.C.No.53439/2015 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, Sri Lokesh, alleged that the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him and issued a cheque dated 15.09.2015 drawn on Corporation Bank, HAL 3rd Stage Branch, Bengaluru. The cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured with the endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. A legal notice was issued, and despite receipt, the accused failed to pay the amount. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000/- with default sentence. The appeal before the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.25180/2018 was dismissed on 17.01.2019. The present revision petition was filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. The court observed that the complainant had proved the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt was not rebutted by the accused. The accused merely denied the transaction but did not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The High Court found no ground to interfere in revision and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant proved that the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and issued a cheque which was dishonoured. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 - Scope - The revisional court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the courts below. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is liable to be set aside in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
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 bounce cases
- Concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered in revision
