Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 864

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Kuntegowda - Appellant
Versus
Thurubaiah – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2247 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Saransh Khandelwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Ms. Divya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv. Ms. Tanya Chhillar, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR

The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction does not permit the reappreciation of evidence or the substitution of concurrent findings of lower courts, unless the order is shown to be perverse, illegal, or patently unreasonable. Statutory presumptions regarding negotiable instruments must be rebutted by cogent evidence, not mere conjecture.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118, 138, 139, 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption in favour of holder - Rebuttal of presumption - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court. (Paras 5, 5.5, 5.6, 6, 7)

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - High Court does not act as an appellate court in revision - It is meant to check correctness, legality, and propriety of proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice - It should not reappreciate evidence to substitute findings unless findings are perverse or unreasonable. (Paras 7, 7.2)

Facts of the case:
The complainant extended a hand loan to the accused. A cheque issued for repayment was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused under the relevant statute, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. The High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the conviction by reappreciating evidence and concluding that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan.

Findings of Court:
The accused failed to successfully rebut the statutory presumptions regarding the existence of debt and the validity of the cheque through cogent evidence. The High Court, exceeding its narrow revisional jurisdiction, erroneously re-examined the evidence and substituted its findings for the concurrent conclusions of the lower courts in the absence of any glaring perversity or legal error.

Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating oral and documentary evidence to reverse concurrent findings of conviction regarding the financial capacity of the complainant and the rebuttal of statutory presumptions.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot function as an appellate body, nor can it reappreciate evidence to substitute its own conclusions for the concurrent findings of lower courts, unless the order is demonstrably perverse, illegal, or patently unreasonable.

Result: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside, conviction and sentence restored.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the negotiable instruments act case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding financial capacity and statutory presumption of debt. (Para 4)
3. statutory provisions and mandatory presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the ni act. (Para 5)
4. application of evidentiary burden and failure of accused to rebut foundational presumptions. (Para 6)
5. scope and limitations of high court revisional jurisdiction against concurrent factual findings. (Para 7)
6. final restoration of trial court conviction order. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the complainant/appellant assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.1502 of 2016 wherein the High Court allowed the said criminal revision petition preferred by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) and thereby set aside the order of conviction dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Court of LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2015. The said Criminal Appeal was preferred by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.09.2015 of the Court of the XL Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Complaint Case No.12108 of 2013 wherein the Magistrate had convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) and thereby sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh) and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Briefly stated, the admitted facts of the case leading to the present Appeal are that the complainant and accused, being acquainted with each other, entered into an agreement in December 2010 whereby a hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh and Fifty Thousand) was extended by the complainant to the accused for the purpose of purchase of a house site. It was further agreed by the parties that the said loan would be paid by the accused within a period of one year with interest at the rate of 16% per annum.

3.1 Thereafter, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.524714 dated 20.03.2013 in favour of the complainant drawn upon ICICI Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant before State Bank of India, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru which was returned on 22.03.2013 with remark “funds insufficient”. Aggrieved, the complainant served a legal notice on the accused on 28.03.2013 demanding that the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh and Fifty Thousand) alongwith interest be paid within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice.

3.2 Aggrieved by the inaction and non-repayment of the hand loan extended, the complainant filed a complaint on 06.05.2013 being Complaint Case No.12108 of 2013 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

3.3 When the matter stood thus, the accused sent a legal notice dated 16.09.2014 to the complainant and one S.B. Ramachandraiah (who was later examined by the trial court as Prosecution Witness No.2) imploring the latter to return his blank cheques and blank documents that were allegedly deposited by the accused as a security for a hand loan of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) that was extended to him by S.B. Ramachandraiah.

3.4 On 01.09.2015, the accused was convicted by the Court of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore under Section 138 of the NI Act in the Complaint Case and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh), in default whereof he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The trial court, while convicting the accused, held that the signature on the cheque admittedly belonged to the acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 864

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.Kuntegowda - AppellantVersusThurubaiah – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2247 of 2024)Decided On : 04-08-2026

Cases Referred (6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Kuntegowda - Appellant
Versus
Thurubaiah – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2247 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-08-2026