The High Court Re-Tried A Cheque Case In Revision. The Conviction Is Back.
Two courts convicted him on a bounced cheque. The High Court acquitted him in revision. The Supreme Court has explained why that was a step too far.
The Court held the High Court erred in reversing well-reasoned and concurrent findings while exercising its extremely limited revisional jurisdiction. It had gone into great detail into each testimony and the merits, without pointing to any glaring contradiction or perversity on the face of the record. The impugned order was set aside and the judgments of the trial court and Sessions Court restored.
- Revision is not appeal. Without perversity on the face of the record, concurrent findings stand.
- The signature does the work. Once it is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 are triggered.
- The onus then shifts to the accused to disprove liability, and a bare attack on the lender's means will not discharge it.
- Silence on the statutory notice counts. Not replying supports the complainant's version.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 790
- Reported
- [2026] 8 S.C.R. 327
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026
- Decided
- 4 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court's acquittal set aside, conviction restored
How the case ran
The complainant extended a hand loan of Rs 4,50,000, repayable within a year with interest at 16 per cent. The cheque issued towards repayment was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.
The trial court convicted under Section 138 and imposed a fine of Rs 9,00,000. In appeal the conviction was affirmed and the fine modified to Rs 6,50,000.
The High Court, in revision, set aside the conviction and acquitted, holding the accused had rebutted the presumption by exposing the complainant's financial incapacity to lend.
Why the presumption held
The accused admitted his signature as drawer, and the complainant thus became the holder in due course. Once the signature is proved, it follows that the accused knew the contents of the cheque unless the contrary is shown.
On compliance with Section 138, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were triggered, shifting the onus to the accused to disprove liability.
The complainant's investments established his capacity to lend, bolstered by hand loans from PW-2 and PW-3 corroborated in their examination-in-chief. The accused's failure to reply to the statutory notice supported the complainant's version, and no contrary material was produced.
Where the High Court went wrong
It went into great detail into each testimony, the documents and the merits — an exercise that could have been avoided in revision.
It failed to identify any glaring contradiction or perversity apparent on the face of the record that would justify the exercise of revisional power.
The order was set aside and the conviction and sentence of the courts below restored.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can the High Court acquit in revision in a cheque case?
Only where there is a glaring contradiction or perversity apparent on the face of the record. Re-appreciating the evidence is not open.
What happens once the signature on the cheque is admitted?
The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise and the onus shifts to the accused to disprove liability.
Resisting a revision against a cheque conviction
- Frame the answer around the limits of Section 397: concurrent findings fall only on perversity apparent on the record.
- Lead the complainant's means positively — investments and corroborated loans did it here.
- Point to any failure to reply to the statutory notice; the inference is available.
- Resist any invitation to re-argue the evidence in revision; that invitation is itself the error.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 790, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 327, Criminal Appeal No. 3654 of 2026, decided 4 August 2026 by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in