Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.
Jayamma – Petitioner
versus
Jayamma @ Nagamma – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.6 of 2014
Decided on 3.2.2023
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 139 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Dishonour of cheque – Conviction and sentence – Cheque was issued in discharge of a legal debt – When there is issuance of blank cheque, burden lies on accused to disprove case of complainant – Cheque returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in account of revision petitioner-accused – Statutory notice of dishonour was duly issued to her – There was no response from revision petitioner-accused – There is just a denial – Mere denial or rebuttal by accused is not enough – Accused has to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability – Cheque was filled in by complainant being payee – Even a blank cheque leaf, validly signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction of petitioner-accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act confirmed. (Paras 17, 20, 23, 27, 36, 39 and 44)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 – Presumption of debt – Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence, which requires prosecution to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt – Obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless accused adduces evidence showing reasonable possibility of non-existence of presumed fact – Guilt may be established by recourse to presumptions in law and presumptions of facts. (Paras 33 and 34)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Revisional jurisdiction – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction High Court does not, in absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings – It is not for Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret evidence on record – Interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited to exceptional cases. (Paras 40, 41 and 42)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The Revision Petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.11.2013 passed by the II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl. A. No.152/2013 dismissing her appeal against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur, in C.C. No.401/2008 dated 05.03.2013 has preferred this Revision Petition.
2. The parties to this Revision Petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court, for convenience.
3. The brief facts leading up to this revision petition are as under:
That The complainant and accused are known to each other. It is alleged that, accused approached the complainant for financial assistance for her family necessities and benefits. Accordingly, complainant advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the first week of October, 2007 to the accused. In discharge of the said legal liability, it is alleged that, accused issued a cheque bearing No.0775854 dated 30.10.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Chikmagalur-Kodagu Grameena Bank, Kadur. It is further alleged that, when the said cheque was presented for encashment through the banker of the complainant i.e., Canara Bank on 21.01.2008, the said cheque came to be dishonoured as per the endorsement dated 29.01.2008 as “funds insufficient”. The complainant has intimated the same to the accused on 03.02.2008. Thereafter, she got issued the legal notice to the accused on 08.02.2008 demanding the repayment of the cheque amount. But accused failed to pay the demanded amount. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.
4. On filing the complaint, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence, recorded sworn statement of the complainant, issued process against accused and secured her presence. She was enlarged on bail. The Trial Court recorded the substance of accusation, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the complainant, she herself examined as P.W.1 and marked documents on her behalf as Exs.P1 to P6. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. so as enable her to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. She denied her complicity in the crime. She submitted before the Trial Court that, she wants to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, by way of defence evidence, she entered witness box as D.W.1. She also examined one more person as D.W.2 on her behalf and marked documents at Exs.D1 to D10 and closed her evidence.
6. The learned Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides, passed the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. It is further ordered that, out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, accused preferred Crl.A. No.152/2013 before the II Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, being the First Appellate Court.
7. The learned First Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said appeal on 13.11.2013 confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Principal JMFC, Kadur in C.C. No. 104/2008, dated 05.03.2013. This is how, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the revision petitioner being accused has preferred this revision petition on the following grounds:
8. That the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have passed the Judgment which is against the law and facts. Therefore, the said Judgments are liable to be set aside. It is further stated that, the First Appellate Court in the ab
A signed blank cheque, validly handed over by the accused, attracts the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless the accused provides evidence to the contrary. The burd....
The presumption favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
