Kuntegowda vs Thurubaiah

This case is about a cheque bounce dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, Kuntegowda, lent Rs. 4,50,000 to the accused, Thurubaiah, in 2010. To repay it, the accused issued a cheque in 2013, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The trial court and Sessions Court convicted the accused. However, the Karnataka High Court reversed this decision during a revision petition. The High Court doubted the complainant's financial capacity to lend such a large amount because his monthly income was only Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the conviction. It held that once the accused admits their signature on a cheque, the law presumes the cheque was issued to clear a valid debt. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove otherwise with solid evidence, not just guess-work. The accused failed to reply to the initial legal notice and created a weak defense much later as an afterthought. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified the limits of a High Court's revisional power. It ruled that a revisional court is not a regular appeal court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or overturn concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a glaring, illegal error.

The complainant gave a loan of Rs. 4,50,000 to the accused, but the cheque given to repay it bounced. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted him, questioning the complainant's income.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the conviction. It ruled that since the signature was admitted, the debt must be presumed valid, and the High Court had no power to re-examine facts under its limited revision powers.

This judgment protects lenders from dishonest borrowers who try to escape liability by questioning the lender's monthly income. It also clarifies that High Courts cannot easily overturn concurrent judgments of lower courts in cheque bounce cases.