Revisional court will not reweigh cheque dishonour evidence

The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner was convicted in C.C. No. 3703/2019 by the Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru, and the conviction was affirmed in Crl.A. No. 494/2022 by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The revision was filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complainant’s case was that the accused borrowed Rs. 7,00,000 in the second week of October 2018 and issued cheque No. 527327 dated 14.04.2019 for the same amount. The cheque was dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”. A statutory notice dated 16.05.2019 was issued and, despite service, there was no payment or reply.

At trial, the complainant examined himself and produced nine documents, including the cheque, bank endorsement, notice, postal records, track report and statement of account. The accused examined herself and one more witness. The trial court held that the defence evidence was not enough to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 8,05,000, with Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that only Rs. 1,00,000 had been borrowed and that the cheque had been issued as security, but was later filled up for Rs. 7,00,000. It was also argued that the cheque was invalid under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice V. Srishananda found no ground to interfere. The Court noted that the cheque belonged to the accused and bore her signature. More importantly, it held that the revisional court cannot reanalyse or reinterpret evidence in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error. Since both the trial court and the appellate court had returned concurrent findings, the revision was dismissed.

The practical takeaway is that a security-cheque defence must be backed by convincing evidence, because revisional jurisdiction will not reopen concurrent factual findings unless perversity is shown.