Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Megha M Padavalkar, was convicted by the JMFC (II Court), Karwar in C.C. No. 540/2008 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued to the complainant Govind V Naik. The trial court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default sentence of three months, and directed payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Crl.A. No. 143/2012 was dismissed on 08.05.2018, upholding the conviction. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of the courts below. The accused's defence was that the loan amount had been repaid earlier, but no documentary evidence was produced to support this claim. The courts below had relied on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused failed to rebut this presumption. The High Court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttal - The accused failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The defence of loan being repaid earlier was not proved by any documentary evidence. (Paras 3-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 - Scope - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the courts below. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
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 under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (11) 24
Criminal Revision Petition No.100118 of 2018
Sri. Praveen P. Tarikar (for petitioner), Sri. S.S. Beturmath for Shri. K.L. Patil (for R-1), Shri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. SPP (for R-2)
Govind V Naik and The State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (accused) sought to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued to the complainant.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused on 11.09.2012 in C.C. No. 540/2008; appellate court dismissed appeal on 08.05.2018 in Crl.A. No. 143/2012.
Issues
Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the loan amount was repaid earlier and the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt.
Respondent argued that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act stood unrebutted and the concurrent findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The courts below have concurrently held that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
The defence of the accused that the loan amount was repaid earlier was not proved by any documentary evidence.
There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the courts below.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was tried as C.C. No. 540/2008 by JMFC (II Court), Karwar, resulting in conviction on 11.09.2012. The accused appealed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Crl.A. No. 143/2012, which was dismissed on 08.05.2018. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 29.11.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397, 401
