A loan, a dishonoured cheque and three different outcomes
The dispute concerned a ₹4.5 lakh hand loan, allegedly advanced for purchase of a house site and repayable within one year with 16% annual interest. A cheque was returned for insufficient funds. The complainant issued a demand notice and brought a Section 138 complaint. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a ₹9 lakh fine; the Sessions Court upheld conviction but reduced the fine to ₹6.5 lakh. The High Court then acquitted him in revision. (Paragraphs 2–3.7.)
How the presumptions operated
The accused admitted his signature. With the statutory requirements satisfied, Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifted the evidentiary burden to him to rebut the presumption supporting the complainant. That did not make the presumption conclusive. The Court examined his challenge to the lender’s financial capacity, the investment evidence and the supporting witnesses. It found that the defence did not undermine the complainant’s account when the evidence was considered together. (Paragraphs 6–6.10.)
Why the High Court’s revision was set aside
Revision is not simply another full appeal on the facts. The Court found no identified glaring contradiction or perversity sufficient to justify the High Court’s intervention. Re-examining testimony in detail did not establish a lawful reason to discard the concurrent decisions. The Supreme Court therefore restored the lower-court orders, including the Sessions Court’s modification of the fine. Describing the result merely as restoration of a ₹9 lakh fine would miss that appellate modification. (Paragraphs 3.5 and 7–8.)
The useful distinction for readers
The ruling connects two questions that should remain separate: whether an accused has rebutted the statutory presumption and whether a revisional court may overturn the findings reached below. Financial capacity can be examined through evidence; this judgment does not make it irrelevant. Its conclusion was that the challenge failed on this record, and that the High Court had not supplied a sufficient basis for exercising its restricted revisional power. (Paragraphs 6–8.)
A question this judgment answers
Does an admitted signature make conviction automatic?
No. The presumptions remain rebuttable, and the statutory conditions and defence evidence still matter. The Court found those presumptions unrebutted in this case. (Paragraphs 6–6.10.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Ms. Karishma Maria, Ms. Saumya, Saransh Khandelwal.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., M/s Nuli & Nuli, Abhishek Kanyalur, Shiva Swaroop, Dharam Singh.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRRP No. 1502 of 2016