Concurrent cheque-dishonour convictions warrant no revisional interference absent perversity or gross error.

The complainant alleged that he lent the accused ₹2,00,000 on 28 November 2017 and received a post-dated cheque in repayment. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds; after notice and non-payment, the complainant brought a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a fine of ₹2,91,200, with ₹10,000 payable towards State expenses and the balance as compensation. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the accused contended that the cheque had been given as security in a chit transaction and was misused.

The court applied Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act: once the statutory requirements for an offence under Section 138 are established and execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise, including the presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; those presumptions are rebuttable.

The court also applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not permit routine reappreciation of evidence where two courts have reached concurrent findings. Interference is warranted where, among other grounds, the findings are perverse or untenable, rest on irrelevant or no material, omit relevant material, or reflect arbitrary or capricious discretion.

In stating this standard, the court relied on Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026, and the principles quoted from State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452.

The accused admitted his signature on the cheque and that it was drawn on his bank account; the court also found that the cheque had been dishonoured and the notice and payment-related requirements were met, thereby attracting the statutory presumption.

The accused’s chit-transaction defence was not supported by reliable evidence: the notebook relied on did not identify a date or participants, was unsigned, and its provenance and entries were unexplained; the defence witnesses gave inconsistent accounts, and one witness was not cross-examined.

The accused also did not examine the relative whom he said had held the cheque. His financial-capacity arguments did not, in the court’s view, rebut the statutory presumption, and the complainant’s account of the source of the funds was not specifically challenged.

The concurrent findings disclosed no basis for revisional interference.

It found no ground to disturb the trial court’s conviction and sentence, as affirmed on appeal, and dismissed the criminal revision petition.