Concurrent Section 138 convictions cannot be disturbed in revision absent perversity or gross error.

The complainant alleged that she advanced ₹13,00,000 to the accused in December 2016 by transferring ₹10,00,000 to his wife’s account and paying ₹3,00,000 to his business partner.

The accused later acknowledged liability of ₹34,00,000 under a notice and issued a cheque for ₹7,50,000, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The complainant’s demand notice was returned with the endorsement “door locked”; the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) followed.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 and imposed a fine of ₹7,65,000, including ₹7,60,000 as compensation; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The accused challenged both decisions in revision.

Section 138 of the NI Act applies where a cheque is issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the statutory notice and payment requirements are met.

Sections 118 and 139 create rebuttable presumptions that a cheque was issued for consideration and towards a legally recoverable debt; the accused may rebut them through the evidence, including cross-examination.

In revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and ordinarily will not reappreciate evidence absent perversity, material error, non-consideration of relevant material, or arbitrary exercise of discretion.

State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659, and State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452.

The accused admitted his signature on the cheque and that it related to his bank account; the cheque was dishonoured, and the demand notice was treated as deemed served, bringing the statutory presumptions into operation.

The courts below found that the accused’s notice acknowledging a ₹34,00,000 liability, together with the evidence that the cheque represented partial payment, supported the complainant’s case.

Although the accused relied on the notice to argue that the debt was owed to the complainant’s husband, he did not adduce defence evidence or seriously challenge the complainant’s evidence concerning the transfers and her financial capacity.

His suggestion that the cheque had been misused was considered vague and unsupported.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings within its limited revisional jurisdiction.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, leaving the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act undisturbed.