LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 561Decided 2 Jul 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

The accused had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant for business expenses and issued a post-dated cheque to repay it, but the cheque bounced twice for insufficient funds. After a statutory demand notice went unanswered with full payment, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused's defence, that the cheque had actually been stolen by the complainant, was rejected by the trial court, which convicted him and imposed a fine, a conviction upheld on first appeal; however, the High Court, in a criminal revision petition, set aside the conviction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the complainant proved issuance of the cheque and its dishonour, Section 139 of the Act raises a statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, which then shifts the burden onto the accused to rebut it. Since the accused neither led any evidence nor otherwise explained how the presumption could be displaced on the complainant's own testimony, and since his "stolen cheque" defence had already been disbelieved by two courts, the Court found no legal basis for the High Court to have exercised its limited revisional jurisdiction to overturn a concurrent finding of conviction. The Court explained that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to be used as a second appeal for re-appreciating evidence, and the High Court had failed to identify any error of law or jurisdiction that would justify interference. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction recorded by the trial court as affirmed on first appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Once a cheque and its dishonour are proved, the law presumes it was issued against a genuine debt, and it is the accused, not the complainant, who must come forward with evidence to rebut that presumption; a bare denial without proof will not succeed, and a High Court cannot casually overturn such a conviction in revision merely by re-weighing the same evidence.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case