‘Defence is nothing but illusory’: Karnataka High Court rejects teacher’s plea in ‘Rs 7 lakh blank cheque’ case

In her defence, Latha contended that Nagesh had misused the blank cheque she issued. She claimed that the loan availed was of Rs 1 lakh, but Nagesh filled in Rs 7 lakh and presented it to the bank.

A trial court in 2022 allowed Nagesh’s complaint and convicted Latha for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing her to pay Rs 8,05,000 to Nagesh.

‘Wrongly convicted by trial court’

In her revision petition challenging the order, Latha raised the same defence and submitted that the trial court had wrongly convicted her, resulting in an alleged miscarriage of justice.

The high court bench noted that a presumption under Section 139 of the Act—which provides that the cheque is issued by the accused for legally recoverable debt or other liability—was discharged by the complainant when he deposed before the court that the transaction between him and Latha was for Rs 7 lakh, for which she issued him a cheque for repayment.

The court’s order referred to Latha’s deposition before the trial court as a defence witness, where she specifically told the court she had not taken any action against the complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheque.

Similarly, her husband, who works in the income tax department and was also examined as a defence witness, had deposed before the trial court that there was no difficulty in sending a reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant before filing the private complaint before the magistrate’s court, the court said. It added that the accused had no document to support the claim of borrowing Rs 1 lakh instead of Rs 7 lakh from the complainant.

“Thus, the defence of misuse of the cheque having been not established by placing cogent evidence on record, the conviction order passed by the learned trial magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate court needs no interference, that too in the revisional jurisdiction,” the court said.

The court added, “Such a defence cannot be permitted to be allowed as against the strong legal presumption carved out by the legislature only in respect of a distinct offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.”