Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision petition filed by K.M. Lakshmi Devi, proprietor of M/s Sri Varun Enterprises, challenging her conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent, ITC Limited, had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner borrowed Rs.25,75,765 and issued a cheque dated 07.11.2018 (No.056669) towards repayment. The cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement'. A legal notice dated 30.11.2018 was sent, but the petitioner neither paid nor replied. The trial court in C.C.No.3652 of 2019 convicted the petitioner, sentencing her to six months simple imprisonment and directing payment of Rs.25,75,765 as compensation, with a default sentence of two months. The appellate court in C.A.No.632 of 2023 confirmed the conviction. The High Court, in revision, heard both sides. The court noted that the petitioner had not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court held that the scope of revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the revision was 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 had rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. Held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and the concurrent findings of the courts below did not warrant interference. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - Sections 438, 442 BNSS - The court examined the limited scope of revision against concurrent findings of fact. Held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as confirmed by the appellate court, warrants interference in revision.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 NI Act
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Standard of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revision under BNSS
