Concurrent findings in cheque-dishonour cases warrant no revisional interference absent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), alleging that the petitioner had borrowed money for his business and issued a cheque.

The Fast Track Court, Tiruppur, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment, with compensation of ₹3,00,000 and one month’s simple imprisonment in default.

The petitioner appealed, arguing, among other things, that he had closed his business before the alleged loan, that there had been no relevant cheque transactions in his bank account, and that the respondent lacked the means to lend the money.

The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In the revision, the petitioner also failed to comply with an undertaking to deposit ₹1,50,000 made when the revision was admitted.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the NI Act disclosed any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act concerning the cheque and the legally enforceable debt.

Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act provide statutory presumptions relevant to the cheque and the existence of a legally enforceable debt; the court stated that the petitioner had failed to rebut those presumptions.

The Court also applied the principle that revisional jurisdiction is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction and is not a second appeal for reappreciating evidence; absent patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity in concurrent findings, revisionary interference is unwarranted.

Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, was cited by the petitioner in support of his rebuttal argument, but the judgment did not separately rely on it in its final reasoning.

The Court found that both lower courts had considered the petitioner’s contentions and the evidence, and had concluded that the respondent proved execution of the cheque and a legally enforceable debt.

It held that the petitioner had not sufficiently rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings.

The petitioner’s failure to deposit any part of the amount undertaken to be paid, despite the passage of more than four years, also weighed against his bona fides.

It directed the courts below to take immediate steps in accordance with law to secure the petitioner’s presence to serve the remaining sentence and to recover any outstanding compensation; there was no order as to costs.