KISHAN RAO versus SHANKARGOUDA

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
KISHAN RAO
v.
SHANKARGOUDA
(Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018)
JULY 02, 2018.
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 139 – Presumption in
favour of holder – Rebuttal of – Dishonour of cheque due to
insufficiency of funds – Conviction by the trial court – High Court
set aside the conviction holding that the accused was able to raise
a doubt regarding existence of debt or liability of the accused – On
appeal, held: High Court erred in setting aside the order of
conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – No sufficient
ground was mentioned – There was no valid basis for the High
Court to hold that the accused has been successful in creating doubt
in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or
liability – Trial court as well as the appellate court found that cheque
contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the
appellant to present in the Bank – Presumption u/s. 139 was rightly
raised which was not rebutted by the accused – No evidence was
led by the accused – Accused even did not come in the witness box
to support his case – Further, the defence taken in the reply to the
notice that cheque was stolen was rejected by the courts below –
Thus, the judgment of the High Court set aside and that of trial
court as affirmed by appellate court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court gave its reasons for setting
aside the order of conviction, it observed that though perception
of a person differs from one another with regard to the acceptance
of evidence on record but in its perception and consideration,
the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of
the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability.
The High Court has not returned any finding that order of
conviction based on evidence on record suffers from any
perversity or based on no material or there is other valid ground
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 69
69
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no valid basis for
the High Court to hold that the accused has been successful in
creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the
existence of the debt or liability. The appellant has proved the
issuance of cheque which contained signatures of the accused
and on presentation of the cheque, the cheque was returned with
endorsement “insufficient funds”. Bank official was produced as
one of the witnesses who proved that the cheque was not returned
on the ground that it did not contain signatures of the accused
rather it was returned due to insufficient funds. The judgment of
High Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. [Paras
14, 15][75-D-E; 76-D-F]
1.2 Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
provides for drawing the presumption in favour of holder. In the
instant case, the trial court as well as the appellate court having
found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it
was given to the appellant to present in the Bank. The
presumption under Section 139 was rightly raised which was not
rebutted by the accused. The accused had not led any evidence
to rebut the said presumption. The accused even did not come in
the witness box to support his case. In the reply to the notice
which was given by the appellant the accused took the defence
that the cheque was stolen by the appellant. The said defence
was rejected by the trial court after considering the evidence on
record with regard to which no contrary view has also been
expressed by the High Court. [Paras 17, 20][76-G; 79-A-C]
1.3 No evidence was led by the accused. The defence taken
in the reply to the notice that cheque was stolen having been
rejected by the two courts below, there is no basis for the High
Court coming to the conclusion that the accused has been
successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard
to the existence of the debt or liability. How the presumption
under Section 139 can be rebutted on the evidence of PW.1,
himself has not been explained by the High court. [Para 22][80-
C-D]
1.4 The High Court committed error in setting aside the
order of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No
sufficient ground was mentioned by the High Court in its judgment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
to enable it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside
the conviction. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and
the judgment of trial court as 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.