Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that in a revision, it cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate court and can only interfere to correct jurisdictional errors or patent legal defects, which were absent in this case.
Facts
The complainant, who owned a shop adjacent to the petitioner’s jewellery shop, provided a friendly loan of ₹10 lakh in June 2014 to the petitioner to upgrade his business, with the understanding that it would be repaid within a year with interest. A post-dated cheque for ₹10 lakh was issued by the petitioner, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds upon presentation. Despite statutory notice, the petitioner failed to repay the amount, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues
- Whether the courts below erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite alleged discrepancies in the financial transaction.
- Whether the High Court in revision could reappreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the cheque issued was not in discharge of any legally enforceable debt, raising discrepancies regarding the actual loan amount advanced, and claimed the case of the complainant was highly suspect. It was contended that the lower courts failed to appreciate these discrepancies, warranting interference by the High Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant maintained that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The statutory notice was duly served, and the petitioner’s failure to pay within the stipulated period completed the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating that revisional courts are not appellate courts and can only interfere to correct jurisdictional errors or patent defects of law. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, the Court observed that concurrent findings of conviction arrived at after appreciation of evidence cannot be reappreciated in revision.
Precedent Analysis
- Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022): Held that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent defects or jurisdictional errors.
- State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023): Reiterated the narrow scope of interference in revision.
- The principles from these cases guided the Court to refrain from reappreciating evidence in the absence of jurisdictional or legal errors.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect or patent illegality in the orders of the lower courts. It held that discrepancies in the petitioner’s version did not undermine the legally enforceable debt evidenced by the issuance and dishonour of the cheque. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, and the statutory requirements under Section 138 were fulfilled.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that there was no ground for interference within the limited revisional jurisdiction available to the Court.
Implications
- Reinforces that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence.
- Strengthens the credibility and enforceability of negotiable instruments, deterring misuse and ensuring prompt repayment of debts.
- Clarifies that discrepancies in the loan transaction will not defeat a prosecution under Section 138 if statutory compliance is demonstrated.
Cases Referred and Their Reference Here
- Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204: Cited for the limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, allowing interference only in cases of jurisdictional or legal errors.
- State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1294: Referred to reaffirm the limited scope of interference in criminal revisions.
These cases were used to guide the Court in refusing reappreciation of evidence in the present revision under Section 138 of the NI Act.
FAQs
1. Can the High Court reappreciate evidence in a revision under Section 397 CrPC?
No, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate court and can only correct jurisdictional errors or legal defects.
2. Is the dishonour of a cheque sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act?
Yes, if the cheque is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory procedures are complied with, it suffices for conviction.
3. What was the main reason the High Court upheld the conviction in this case?
The Court found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the lower courts’ findings, and the requirements under Section 138 of the NI Act were fulfilled.